TECHNOLOGY SKILLS SPARKS SUCCESS:

A STUDY OF BEST PRACTICES FOR TEACHERS AND THE EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION OF

TECHNOLOGY IN THE K-12 CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

by

Arman L. Demesa

JOSHUA T. FISCHER, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

KEITH J. JOHANSEN, Ph.D., Committee Member

GORDON GRAHAM, Ph.D., Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, Ph.D., Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

June 2009
 UMI Number: 3372235

Copyright 2009 by
Demesa, Arman L.

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

______________________________________________________________

UMI Microform 3372235

Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
_______________________________________________________________

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 ii

© Arman L. Demesa, 2009

 iii

Abstract

This dissertation answered the inquiries of the author regarding the presence of best practices for the teachers inside

the K-12 classroom environment and the effective ways to integrate technology into the methods of teaching to

achieve valuable learning outcomes. It was reflected in the research that effectual educational technology training

programs were not available on a large scale to train the teachers at the K-12 curriculum level. This study, intended

to contribute some knowledge that can be used for developing new ways on the smooth integration of technology

into the classrooms of pedagogical and andragogical learning. A discussion of motivation and learning theories were

presented. A mixed-methodology approach, specifically the sequential explanatory strategy was used for the

collection, assessment, and analysis of data to support the competencies framework proposed by the author of this

study that will enable teachers to incorporate technology into their instruction. The author presented the findings

surrounding the most effective strategies towards the advancement and production of best practices towards

technology integration into the classrooms. Many scholars have agreed that technology plays a major role in

education and in the advancement of academia in all fields of learning from the primary grades to the higher

education. Present teachers as well as future teachers who participated in this study indicated a strong desire towards

embracing the use of technology into their practice and expanding their skills through continuous collaboration by

attending professional development courses. Technology and innovations will continue to advance and play

significant role inside the classrooms requiring new designs to accommodate the new generation of learners who

expect high quality instruction. Enhancing student learning outcomes is a priority among school administrators who

labor patiently in perfecting their technology plans to provide their students sound and effective methods of

teaching.
 iv

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my appreciation to my Mentor, Dr. Joshua T. Fischer who guided me through this

wonderful and challenging journey, my Committee Members, Dr. Keith J. Johansen and Dr. Gordon Graham for

without their valuable assistance and great effort this research would not have been possible. I also want to thank my

Professors who worked very, very hard inside the classroom and were truly dedicated to their profession and in

providing the highest quality of instruction. To my fellow Learners, Cohort members (during the early phase of the

program), who shared their expertise and resources that were very useful during the journey, I appreciate the support

you have afforded me during the class discussions and the significant events we shared at the colloquium.

I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Ronald Griffith (my previous associate at the San Diego City College)

who encouraged me to pursue this doctoral degree along with him. It is also important to mention Mr. Paul Algoso

who trained me at the City College. His dedication and love for teaching was inspiring and he truly practiced the

characteristics of an effective teacher. To my colleague Mr. Bobby Boden who helped me execute the evaluation

project I had to do during my journey, thank you so much for your accommodation.

Special thanks to Dr. Kathleen Klinger who has trusted me to teach the Educational Technology course at

National University. The position I now hold as an Adjunct Faculty has been a significant contributor towards the

completion of the research.

 v

Dedication

I dedicate this project to my wonderful wife Elsie who provided unyielding moral support as well as

attending to my routine obligations without expecting anything in return. Her unconditional love, understanding, and

devotion to her duties as a soul mate kept my strength to continue this study and gave me the inspiration that enabled

me to tackle the challenges with courage and the commitment to present my very best as an individual who always

dreamt for a better life for the whole family.

To my children Armanel and Armel, I’ve always labored to provide the support they need so they may also

achieve their goals to make a difference in our society. To my sister Teresa, my cousins Teresita and Agustin

Mercado, to my nieces and nephews who were also my inspiration. I also wish to dedicate this project to my loving

mother Clarita and to my late father John who is here with us in spirit, my mother Rose, my late father Atanacio and

to my late aunt Dona Serafina Liwanag vda. de Mercado who instilled in my mind the importance of education. She

nurtured my innocence with her prudent words and talents in business although she never attained a higher

education.

I would like to dedicate this work to the Abagon family, Antonio family, Barlis family, Faustino family,

Gitana family, Utrera family, Vives family, my fellow instructors at San Diego City College and National

University, all my brother Masons, my associates in real estate, and to all my classmates in high school.

Finally, I dedicate this project to all my fellow educators who share the same passion in providing the

highest quality of instruction to the students who fully deserve the best education that our nation has to offer.
 vi

Table of Contents

List of Tables ix-x

List of Figures xi

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 2

Statement of the Problem 4

Purpose of the Study 5

Rationale 6

Research Questions 7

Significance of the Study 7

Definition of Terms 9

Assumptions and Limitations 11

Nature of the Study 11

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 15

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 17

Introduction 17

Integrating Technology into the Classroom 17

Impact of Technology on Teacher Beliefs and Instructional Practices 22

Motivating the Adult Learner 25

Developing Competent and Caring Teachers for Leadership and Service 27

Characteristics of Effective Teachers 27

Educational DNA 28

Problem Areas 30

Best Practices 31

Research Approach Comparisons 31

Quantitative Research 33
 vii

Quantitative Approach on Technology Competency 33

Qualitative Research in Education Research 33

Mixed-Method Approach 34

Conclusion 35

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 36

Purposes of the Study 36

Research Questions 37

Research Design 38

Selection of Participants 43

Research Procedures 44

Instruments 46

Hypotheses 47

Data Collection 47

Ethical Issues 51

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 52

Summary of Primary Results 52

Data Analysis – Question One 57

Data Analysis – Question Two 71

Data Analysis – Question Three 77

Summation 82

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION 84

Limitations of Study 84

Summary of Research Findings 85

Conclusions of Findings 87

Recommendations 91

Theory and Elements of Learning 93

Future Research 94

Concluding Comments 94
 viii

REFERENCES 96

APPENDIX A. Professional Development of Teachers Survey 101

APPENDIX B. Principal Survey Instrument 103

APPENDIX C. Teacher Survey Instrument 107

APPENDIX D. Interview Questions 111

APPENDIX E. Online Survey of Students Attending National University 112

APPENDIX F. Competent and Caring Teachers Conceptual Framework 116

APPENDIX G. Characteristics of Effective Teachers 117

APPENDIX H. Standards for Technology Competence 120

APPENDIX I. Good Teaching: The Top Ten Requirements 121

APPENDIX J. Consent to Participate in Research (Teachers) 123

APPENDIX K. Consent to Participate in Research (Principals) 124

APPENDIX L. From Campus Technology 08 PowerPoint Presentation 126

APPENDIX M. From Campus Technology 08 PowerPoint Presentation 127

 ix

List of Tables

Table 1. Prior Access to Technology (N = 37) 20

Table 2. Student Opinions of PDAs (N = 74) 20

Table 3. PDA Applications in the Course (N = 37) 21

Table 4. Expected Future PDA Applications (N = 37) 21

Table 5. Summary of Results for the Rating Average for all Quantitative Instruments 53

Table 6. Summary of Results for the Percentage of Respondents for Teacher Survey 53

Table 7. Summary of Results for the Rating Average for Online Survey 54

Table 8. Summary of Results for the Rating Average for Professional Development 55

Table 9. Summary of Results for the Rating Average for Principal Survey 55

Table 10. Summary of Semi-Structured Interview of Five Teachers 55

Table 11. Enthusiasm for Using Technology (N=47) 57

Table 12. How Has Technology Changed the Teaching Process in Your Classroom? (N=54) 58

Table 13. How Has Technology Changed the Learning Process in Your Classroom? (N=43) 58

Table 14. Work Involved Using Computers or the Internet (N=138) 62

Table 15. Frequency of Student Use of Technology During Class Time (N=137) 64

Table 16. Technology Availability and Extent of Its Use (N=161) 65

Table 17. Preparedness to Use Computers and the Internet in the Classroom (N=99) 66

Table 18. Personal Preparation for Using Computers and the Internet (N=102) 66

Table 19. Professional Development in Use of Computers and the Internet (N=34) 67

Table 20. Technology Training Provided by School or District (98) 67

Table 21. Availability of and Participation in Technology Training (N=148) 68

Table 22. Provider of Computer-Related Help (N=78) 69

Table 23. Barriers to Use of School Computers or the Internet for Instruction (N=95) 70

Table 24. Professional Development Opportunities (N=75) 72

Table 25. Teachers’ Use of Technology (N=73) 73

Table 26. How Important is Technology—Administratively? (N=5) 75

Table 27. How Important is Technology—For Instruction? (N=5) 75

 x

Table 28. How Important is Technology—For Community Building? (N=5) 76

Table 29. How Has Technology Changed the Teaching Process? (N=5) 76

Table 30. How Has Technology Changed the Learning Process? (N=5) 76

Table 31. How Has Technology Changed the Management/Administrative Process? (N=4) 76

Table 32. Summary of Semi-Structured Interview of Five Teachers 81

 xi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Percentage of Teachers Who Use the Laptop at Least a Few Times a Week or More 23

Figure 2. Percentage of Teachers Reporting Positive Impact of Laptops 23

 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Educating future teachers in technology for the Kindergarten-12th grade (K-12) curriculum is a

significant challenge that government entities, school administrators, the private sector, and major

companies can plan for practical strategies to produce better performing educators. With the growing

emphasis on technology in society today, the maximum use of educational technology by teachers can

enhance student preparation for the global workforce. Most K-12 teachers across the nation are competent

and dedicated to teaching their chosen field, but some lack the skills to integrate technology into their

instruction or practices. They have not fully embraced the advantages of technology and its effectiveness in

enhancing the learning process for all K-12 students.

This issue also includes post-secondary schools such as community colleges and universities. This

condition exists primarily from a lack of the following: funding, support from the local and national

government, cooperation from the parents, collaboration among school administrators, proper planning for

technology integration, and many other social and economic issues that are being discussed in the civilian,

and public sectors.

Technology integration in the classroom is not the only issue affecting the value and quality of

education in America. Classroom overcrowding and the high student-teacher ratio have led to the seriously

compromised ability of teachers to teach students effectively. It is necessary for the national government to

rectify this situation before there can be any further improvements in the teaching process. One step in the

right direction is the government’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which was created for the

betterment of all schools across the nation. However, many school children are still suffering now as a

result of classroom overcrowding. They are not receiving the quality of instruction that they need to learn

the elements of basic education, such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. In the spring of 2002,

Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senate (ICAS) published a paper on Academic Literacy: A

Statement of Competencies Expected of Students Entering California’s Public Colleges and Universities.

The chart developed from the study illustrated that the students lack the foundational skills in reading for

success, writing, and critical thinking skills. Solutions to these issues mentioned above can contribute to
 2

successful improvement of students’ academic performance, which will allow them to compete against

their foreign counterparts.

Background of the Study

The increasing number of classrooms using technology for learning in different educational areas

and levels has contributed to increased attention on the most appropriate instructional design for effective

delivery of knowledge. The effective delivery of knowledge through integration of technology into

adolescent and adult classroom instruction has been found to have a significant contribution to learning,

enhancing student learning outcomes, and facilitating the delivery of information in more meaningful ways.

The use of technology for learning at all levels has grown exponentially in recent years, from computer-

assisted instruction to the information superhighway, to the simple improvements engendered by the use of

personal computers in management and information systems. Hence, the majority of school administrators

and teachers are engaged in a continuous search for new technologies to teach the present generation of

students who are mostly technology savvy. From notebook computers to wireless phones and handheld

(W/H) devices, the massive infusion of computing devices and rapidly improving Internet capabilities have

altered the nature of higher education (Green, 2000) and adult learning, expanding the options available for

learners to engage in higher education. The proliferation of Computer-Assisted Learning (CAL) in the last

few decades with the use of Internet, email, multimedia technology, video blogging using webcam, and

smart boards offers additional examples of technology use.

In order for technology to be successful in schools, teachers need ongoing training to effectively

integrate it into their curriculum and become comfortable with its use in the classroom. Teacher training is

a core activity in the development of educational technology courses because teachers do promote effective

methods of teaching and rethinking activity in education. Thus, it is important to help them effectively

integrate technology into their work (Pettenani, Giuli, & Khaled, 2001). According to a report by the Office

of Technology Assessment (OTA, 1995), to use technology successfully, teachers not only need to have

access to it, but also discover and experiment on the different ways that it can be applied. Continuous

application of what they have learned will help them retain their technology skills and perhaps allow them

to construct different methods of teaching that is technology-rich and filled with thought-provoking
 3

questions that can lead to the discovery of new technologies to achieve success and promote a practical and

applicable approach to teaching and learning congruent to their own settings.

In training teachers, it is helpful to understand how teachers relate with technology, what their

behaviors and attitudes are towards technology, what their role is in this kind of environment, and what is

being done to help them function in technology-based classrooms. The need to incorporate technology in

classrooms becomes more pressing and challenging for practicing teachers who have established ways of

teaching. These teachers have to deal with a task of learning something new and changing their way of

teaching. A new approach or applicable framework of study is necessary to stimulate the interest of

educators and motivate them to use technology in presenting information to the students. With the

increasing need to incorporate technology into the education system, recently developed technological

innovations can effectively augment the educational process and offer opportunities to advance the

professional development of educators by providing them with training in its use and integration into the

classroom. Since teachers do play a major role in students’ learning, it is advantageous for them to stay

informed about the changes that are taking place in education and technology. A report by the National

Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) states that

It is impossible to deny the tremendous effect rapid technological growth has had on our society.
This explosion of new technologies has changed the way we live…Technological advancements
are also affecting the way we teach and learn. The business world demands that our schools
prepare educated workers who can use technology effectively in the global market. (Bracey, 2005,
p. 121)

A much closer partnership between businesses and the communities of scholar practitioners may bridge the

gap towards mutual understanding to promote technological progress among the schools.

The quote above shows the importance of preparing students to better cope with the demands of

communities in the 21st century. Research on the effects of technology on student learning has gained

significant attention from the public sector, with studies reporting how technology helps students learn

better. According to OTA (1995) report findings, teachers reported that technology helped to motivate

students to learn and addressed students with different learning styles. Students who were about to give up

are reported to have found a new interest in school when they worked with technology. Moreover,

technology enabled students to communicate with others outside their school and to bond with students
 4

across the globe. Such activities cannot easily take place in a normal school setting, but with the effective

use of technology and careful guidance from the teacher, they are possible.

Computer technologies have been accepted in classrooms because they promise a new dimension

to education. According to Dede (1998), computers enhance education by providing more active learning,

more varied sensory and conceptual modes, less mental drudgery, learning better tailored to individuals,

and better aid to abstraction. Additionally, the 2001 CEO Forum on Education and Technology asserts that

when technology is used to support learning objectives, improved student achievement can be anticipated

in the form of improved scores on standardized tests, increased application and production of knowledge

for the real world, increased ability for students to manage learning, increased ability to promote

achievement for special needs students, and improved access to information that increases knowledge,

inquiry, and depth of investigation (Bitter & Pierson, 2005, p. 5). The challenge for teachers therefore is to

incorporate technology effectively into the classrooms and maximize its benefits to education (Stepich,

1996). Technology is an effective tool that can make the process of learning less painful for teachers and

more fun for the students who are already exposed to technology from using video game devices and

cellular phones equipped with functions such as video capture, music, text, and gaming capabilities.

Statement of the Problem

Today, "teachers have more resources available through technology than ever before, but have not

received sufficient training in the effective use of technology to enhance learning" (National Technology

Plan [NTP], 2004, pp. 40-41). Many teachers do not have access to the most recent innovations and

technologies that are important for effective teaching and learning, they are ill-prepared to use technology

in their teaching, and the training they receive is usually too basic or generic to help them develop real

facility in teaching with technology. The survey conducted by the National Education Association (2000)

reported that 94% of NEA members and 99% of those more than thirty-five years of age do not have

technology skills to use in the classroom instruction. According to a National Center for Education

Statistics report (U.S. Department of Education, 2000), many teachers do not know how to incorporate

computer skills into classroom instruction.

 5

Currently, the U.S. Department of Education is emphasizing the importance and effective use of

technology for teaching and learning. NTP (2004) presents seven major action steps and recommendations

to improve American education. One of these is focused on improving teacher training. Recommendations

for states, districts, and individual schools include: (a) improve the preparation of new teachers in the use of

technology; (b) ensure that every teacher has the opportunity to take online learning courses; (c) improve

the quality and consistency of teacher education through measurement, accountability, and increased

technology resources; and (d) ensure that every teacher knows how to use data to personalize instruction.

This is marked by the ability to interpret data to understand student progress and challenges that drive daily

decisions and design instructional interventions to customize instruction for every student's unique needs

(NTP, 2004).

Most K-12 teachers are competent in teaching their discipline. However, most of them lack the

technology skills to integrate technology into their instructional practices. This statement is supported by

the Report Cards for all states across the nation from a joint research done by Education Week and

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center (2007). The research clearly indicated that the overall use

and access of technology inside the school classrooms across the nation requires a much needed change for

improvement in order to provide unlimited learning opportunities for all students. In this light, the current

research attempts to address this problem by examining a technology integration training program which

combines online training supported by mentors.

Purpose of the Study

The present research intended to identify best practices for effectively integrating technology into

the K-12 classrooms of the Chula Vista School District in California. If training programs were not present,

this study may help school administrators to explore the creation of university technology education

programs for the preservice and current teachers to develop their technology skills to enhance student

achievement. In the words of Howland and Wedman (2004), “since 2000, most K-12 public schools in the

United States have had technology access, and 98 percent of them are Internet connected.” However, a

majority of K-12 teachers report being unprepared to use instructional technologies or to teach their

students to use technology.

 6

Rationale

The author was compelled to conduct this study because of his desire and dedication to high

quality teaching and learning that developed in June 1987 when he started teaching for the United States

Navy in Mare Island, California. The researcher taught the junior Navy personnel in computer technology,

troubleshooting concepts for maintaining various computer systems and peripheral devices such as

magnetic tape units and printers. The researcher remained there until November 1990. Presently, as a

member of the Adjunct Faculty at National University, the author is teaching Educational Technology to

future teachers and to those currently teaching in the K-12 classrooms. The course at National University is

a required class for the Single and Multiple Subjects credentials for teaching and in meeting the

requirements of the Masters in Education degree program.

The author was compelled to do further research after discovering that most schools of the

prospective teachers are not implementing technology in their classrooms. The administrators are not

supporting the use of technology nor are they interested in any technology plans for their schools. Their

reluctance to change in adopting technology for their schools is significantly strong that it probably hinders

the advancement of teaching and innovation for best practice affecting student learning. As a result, this

could be depriving students of the opportunity to experience technology and use it as part of their learning

process. Many attempts have been made to apply traditional workshop-based training models to satisfy

needs like this (Polselli, 2002). However, they have been largely unsuccessful for improving actual

integration (Hawley & Valli, 2000). To help teachers with technology integration, technology education

programs are being developed to improve computer use in the K-12 classrooms. The findings of Grabe and

Grabe (2007) from research discovered that using a special statistical procedure called meta-analyses had

consistently found benefits for computer-based instruction. Their exploration on technology further led to

their assertions that learning in schools is a social phenomenon; concepts such as cognitive apprenticeship,

cooperative learning, and the learning community also offers insights into a productive environment for

learning. From their beliefs, these concepts are important guides for the use of technology inside the

classroom. Additionally, they claimed that technology can help teachers to create learning environments

that puts these concepts into practice and encourages the deepest level of cognitive development in their

students.
 7

Research Questions

Some research may lead towards the improvement of present conditions or may generate fresh

ideas for conceiving a new body of knowledge that can contribute towards useful strategies or methods in

implementing solutions to some pressing issues affecting the community of learners. Some of the

significant issues challenging educators in the United States today include the deterioration of academic

performance of school children, the failure of teachers to integrate technology into their instructional

practices, the failure of the government to provide the necessary tools to every public school, and the lack

of actions among parents and school administrators. The current research intended to answer the following

research questions:

1. What are the best practices for using classroom technology to facilitate learning in K-12

classrooms in the Chula Vista School District in California?

2. Are the currently available training programs designed to assist K-12 teachers in using

classroom technology promoting these best practices in the Chula Vista School District in

California?

3. What recommendations can be made to strengthen the preparation currently provided to K-12

teachers to enable them to more effectively integrate technology into their classrooms in the

Chula Vista School District in California?

Significance of the Study

This research should contribute new methods of practice or applicable courses of study in education

technology that teachers and pre-teachers can utilize in their practice, enabling them to help most students

to increase their potential for success. The continuous growth and advances in technology if implemented

will contribute to the enhancement of the learning process for all students. Education institutions with the

support of private and government entities may consider and find it meaningful that proper technology is in

place to maximize the uses of varied resources that will help students better perform. The elements of

learning in any course of study from basic to advance methods and the implementation of the scientific

process of teaching at all levels of education may contribute significantly to learning. The study can

contribute towards meaningful teaching and learning for both teachers and students. This study may lead to
 8

the adaptation of newer technologies that can enhance the readiness of the students to learn and maintain

their focus for optimum academic performance. Adaptation of newer technologies for an individual is

characterized by his or her own actions to accomplish or achieve higher level of goals in technology

education. The readiness of the student to learn can be considered one of the important aspects in learning.

Without readiness, most students are not in the position to absorb information or knowledge that is essential

for understanding the rigorous academic subjects presented to them. Emotional and mental stability are also

elements that play a role in learning—the absence of one or the other may only lead to lack of

concentration and the inability to comprehend complex academic materials. The ability to learn is an

element of learning that allows students to focus on their learning and construct their own knowledge based

upon the theory of constructivism or learners building their own personal understanding (Grabe & Grabe,

2007).

The best practices teachers employed in their teaching to enhance student’s learning outcomes were

explored using varied instruments to accurately measure the effectiveness of their practices. A powerful

force in empowering teachers for achieving effective teaching lies in their own motivation for excellence

and enormous caring for their students. Teachers serve as role models for their students by showing them

how to search for valuable knowledge and information necessary for making decisions and to strengthen

their critical thinking skills.

This study sought to uncover whether the currently available training programs designed to assist

K-12 teachers in using classroom technology promoted the best practices in integrating technology into

their classrooms to enhance the positive learning experiences and achievement of all students. Additionally,

this project explored what recommendations can be made to strengthen the preparation currently provided

to K-12 teachers to enable them to more effectively integrate technology into their classrooms. It is

advantageous for the United States government to embark on benchmarking high quality teaching and

superior academic performance through the use of technology to maintain the nation’s superiority in the

world in terms of economic standing. The government has established working relationships with public

and private educators to promote effective school programs ranging from Internet connection for every

school, continuous professional development for teachers, and ongoing construction of technology plans

for future educational technology changes. These actions may produce links of useful communications
 9

among educators that will allow them to collaborate and share their resources towards helping the students

maximize their learning. The NCLB Act of 2001 is the binding document that supports the preceding

statements. Incorporating essential educational change principles as well as current research of technology

integration across teacher education, the Learning Generation (LearnGen) project at the University of

Kansas was developed to generate new ways of successfully teaching and learning technology use

(Robinson & Smith, 2003). This project can be traced at learngen.org where an extensive partnership

among students and teachers exists through their Innovation Cohorts that identifies areas and strategies for

infusing technology into teacher preparation programs.

Definitions of Terms

The key words and acronyms used throughout the study are provided for the reader’s easy access

to their meaning.

Andragogy—initially defined as “the art and science of helping adults learn,” a term originally

used by Alexander Kapp (a German educator) in 1833, was developed into a theory of adult education by

the American educator Malcolm Knowles (1913-1997). Knowles held that andragogy (from the Greek

words meaning "man-leading”) is the practice of teaching and educating adults.

Asynchronous—refers to actions or events that are occurring at different times and locations for

the learners or students organized within a course to achieve a common goal under the distance learning

concepts generated from the Internet or Cyberspace.

CAL–Computer Assisted Learning. It is a process of delivering coursework via the Web.

Educational Technology—the study of human learning and deals with complex, integrated

processes involving people, procedures, ideas, devices, and strategies for analyzing problems and devising

solutions to those problems. It is also defined as the “theory and practice of design, development,

utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning.” (National University

EDT 608 Handout, 2003).

Epistemology—the branch of philosophy which studies the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge.

The word "epistemology" originated from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos (word/speech).

Different approaches to the theory of knowledge exist.

 10

IrDA—Infrared Data Association.

IT—Information Technology. A broad subject concerned with technology and other aspects of

managing and processing information, especially in large organizations.

LMS—Learning Management System. This term refers to any learning management system

designed for distance learning such as E-College, WebCT, or Blackboard.

MOODLE—Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment. This is a learning

management system for distance learning that is comparable to E-College or WebCT.

PDA—Personal Digital Assistant. It is an electronic device used as a tool for setting up a schedule

or plan of actions.

Pedagogy—the art or science of teaching. The word comes from the ancient Greek paidagogos, the

slave who took little boys to and from school as part of paideia (the education of a young man involved a

deeply formative and life-long process whose end result made him an asset to the city-state). The word

"paidia" (παιδιά) refers to children, which is why some like to make the distinction from pedagogy.

Synchronous—the coordination of occurrences to operate in unison with respect to time. This

process can be a premeditated arrangement set forth on a parallel time escape or it can be an observable

coincidence in eventuality.

Technology—the technical means people use to improve their surroundings. It is also knowledge

of using tools and machines to do tasks.

Theory—has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge depending on the

context and their methodologies. In common usage, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture,"

"speculation," or "opinion." In this sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts."

WBT—Web-Based Training. This training deals primarily with computers that are connected to

the Internet or Local Area Network (LAN) of a university.

WebCT—is a Learning Management System that is used for distance learning comparable to E-

College, Blackboard, and MOODLE.

 11

Assumptions and Limitations

This study explored some of the current knowledge developed by scholars for educators who have

enriched student learning by using educational technology in their classroom. The research was conducted

locally in selected schools in the city of Chula Vista, California and at National University in California

where many adult learners were obtaining their teaching degrees and single and multiple-subject credentials

in education. It is assumed that the participants in the study are teachers and administrators employed by

the Chula Vista school district and they will be candid and objective in providing answers to questions. The

conclusions and recommendations are specific to the teachers and principals in these schools;

generalization of results will not be attempted. The online technology survey was implemented through

surveymonkey.com and provided adequate data that helped determine the role of technology inside the K-

12 classrooms. Additionally, the survey indicated the absence of professional development to train teachers

in technology use and prevented them from acquiring the skills needed to keep up with the demands for

new ways of teaching and learning. The limitation associated with this study is that the technology that will

be used in the future is not yet available and it is beyond the scope of this research. Additionally, the

amount of data may not have been sufficient to support the inquiries due to the fragmented locations of the

participants ranging from various counties across the state of California.

Nature of the Study

The major intent of the study was to produce an academic report for future teachers, educators,

administrators, and scholar practitioners in education on how to achieve the effective integration of

technology into instructional practices that will enhance student learning and achievement. To achieve this

goal, the researcher employed the sequential explanatory strategy which is one of the six major methods in

mixed-methodology approach. He collected the quantitative data from the instruments (Appendix A, B, C,

E) and then followed by the collection of qualitative data from the instrument (Appendix D) in which a

semi-structured interview of five teachers was conducted. He analyzed and presented the data with detailed

explanation using tables in Chapter 4. Competence in educational technology is increasingly a requirement

for educators and students as technology finds its way inside the school classrooms at all academic and

grade levels and in conference training facilities in the corporate world. Many professionals in education
 12

are already highly motivated in their practices and additional professional development in educational

technology use could help them to achieve the desired competence level. This professional development

would include solid knowledge and competency in technology skills, the effective methods of teaching, and

employ the most practical way to teach and empower the students with the most recent technology for

learning. The competencies in the use of computers presented by the state and national government

responsible for setting standards at all levels of education are yet to be met by the implementation of well-

designed technology courses for future teachers and administrators. This study may shed light towards this

process by identifying the essential steps needed to plan for and successfully implement the integration of

technology in the classrooms.

The study proposes a mentor supported Web-based training (WBT) as a best practice for effective

integration of technology in the K-12 classroom environment. Web-based training is a good way to prepare

teachers and pre-teachers to more effectively integrate technology into their classrooms. Web-based

training is a simulated learning environment carefully designed by professionals specializing in the design

of online learning. Another way to tackle this activity is to implement various modes of learning by

utilizing technology as a tool in connecting the information to the students. Web-based training

(asynchronous learning) via LMS a (Learning Management System) such as Blackboard or WebCt or E-

College or MOODLE provides many advantages in improving teacher skills and competencies and,

eventually, student learning. These include Internet resources, communication between teacher and learner,

cost savings, global accessibility, efficient and organized delivery, consistent and up-to-date material, and

ease of maintenance (Driscoll, 1997). Overall, studies show that training delivered online can be efficient

and effective (Marold, Larsen, & Shaw, 1999).

A crucial element of online learning for adults is allowing them to move at their own paces during

a minimum instruction time (Ryan, 1997). Financially, WBT will interest school administrators, teachers,

and parents; a large number of users can also be trained with little extra burden placed on resources,

resulting in considerable cost savings (Owston, 1997). Other benefits of WBT include reaching a wide

range of possible users, overcoming conflicting physical locations, delivering the training in chunks instead

of waiting for a complete course, and minimizing time or schedule difficulties (Simonson, 1998). Finally,
 13

WBT serves as a reference long after the initial training session. Such instruction more efficiently attacks

the lack of technology application facing K-12 classrooms (Polselli, 2002).

The concept of technology mentoring in schools is common in the literature. For example, Anzul

(2000) highlighted the established dynamics of mentorship that focused on collaboration and collegiality.

Here, the mentors meet with teachers, identify and discuss specific areas of need, and assist teachers with

these needs. This program fosters individually designed professional development for each teacher.

According to Rothstein (2000), mentors should assume the role of trusted counselors.

Research has shown that a mentor model has proven successful in a variety of professional

development activities related to technology (Polselli, 2002). For example, mentoring was one factor in the

success of the computer technology program in the Concordia Parish Schools System in Louisiana

(Peterman, McGillivray, & Frantz, 1998). In addition, Anzul (2000) also examined a K-12 district-wide

mentorship program in a New Jersey district that was successfully developed, continually assessed, and

which proved beneficial to children and staff. The collaboration online through the use of blogging is now a

popular method of publishing information in real time applications for immediate delivery of knowledge.

The combination of WBT and mentoring presents the potential to exponentially improve

technology integration in K-12 classrooms because the weaknesses evident in either single solution can be

compensated for by the other. WBT affords only limited success as a stand-alone training solution

(Caudron, 1997). However, coupled with technology mentors, a WBT program could truly enhance

technology integration in the classroom. In discussing the conversion of traditional training into web-based

delivery, Simonson (1998) pointed out that novice users often prefer more traditional elements. The human

interaction of mentors alleviates this shortcoming of WBT by offering teachers a combined experience

whereby both traditional and computer support is available to meet their specific grade level and subject

area needs (Polselli, 2002).

Personal support for teachers is an area where a mentor-supported WBT program succeeds. Rather

than just asking teachers to participate in asynchronous training by sitting in front of their computer

screens, the procedures clearly underscore the importance of having mentors available for personal support

for those teachers who need it. This personal interaction addresses needs such as the slow transition from

traditional workshops to an online environment, teacher motivation and clarity of expectations, and simple
 14

human contact that is necessary for bridging the learning differences inherent with varying levels of

technology proficiency (Polselli, 2002). Consequently, having mastered the use of classroom technologies,

teachers can share the benefits of the newly acquired educational knowledge by demonstrating the use of

technology to their peers in the school, and, eventually, to their students. As stated earlier, such training

programs provides teachers new values, concepts, and visions about the integration of technology in their

education system, and can result in a change in school practice for the better.

Because comfort level among teachers regarding their skills improves as a result of the mentor-

supported WBT program, there is a higher probability of improved technology integration. For technology

to be an essential part of teaching and learning, teachers need to become comfortable and skilled with using

computers and other associated equipment. Moreover, before teachers can deliver technology-rich

instruction, they should first be able to use the technology and also feel confident that their lessons will be

improved as a result of using computers. If teachers are not comfortable or lack skills, technology

integration cannot occur (Polselli, 2002).

A new technology called eBook Technologies captured the author’s eye during the Modeling and

Simulation Conference for the Department of Defense (DoD) conducted in Baltimore, Maryland the first

week of May 2006. The technology offers a device called ET1-1 reading device. This device can be used

by students to load their text in e-book format, by teachers to load their lesson plans (power point

presentations, notes, and agenda) as well as numerous e-books that they can use for teaching. It is a

versatile piece of electronic equipment suited for every student, teacher, professor, engineer, medical

professional, etc. The transformation of printed materials to digital format allows anyone to carry volumes

of heavy references now weighing approximately thirty-three ounces.

Finally, different reports give diverse recommendations on how teachers should use computers.

On the one hand, it is suggested that students should not be given too much freedom when working with

computers; on the other hand, it is suggested that teachers should allow students to explore everything on

their own. Shifting the responsibility for learning to the students by providing them the tools they need and

requiring them to produce new knowledge or product is another alternative method of teaching. However,

most literature recognizes that the teacher’s competency and skill in using technology is vital for successful
 15

learning to take place. Technology cannot enhance learning unless teachers know how to use it with

comfort and integrate it effectively into subject-specific areas.

The author strongly believes that most teachers are becoming more and more skillful and

competent in their practices, specifically in the integration of technology in their classrooms. However,

additional technology courses are needed for teachers to take during their staff development days. They can

also collaborate on the technologies that they have learned, sharing them with their fellow teachers or they

can ask the technology resource person who is charged with training staff on technology matters. Since

technology is constantly changing through competitions, it is advantageous for every educator to keep up

with the ongoing development and new discoveries in every field of learning. To achieve this

recommendation, the researcher did develop isspte.org to serve as the center of collaboration and

continuous learning for all educators ranging from K-12 to higher learning.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

This chapter has introduced the problem, stated the background and presented the purpose of the

study, discussed the motivation for undertaking this research, enumerated the three research questions,

tackled the study’s significance, defined key terms used in the study, stated assumptions and limitations,

and explained the nature of the study. The second chapter reviews selected literature relevant to the

importance of technology integration in the classroom. The literature review also covered scholarship on

teacher training that can effectively impact technology integration into the classroom, especially the K-12

environment. It also explored the comparisons of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method approach in

research where one of the six major categories, the sequential explanatory method, was selected and used

for the method approach followed by the data analysis. The third chapter discusses in detail the research

methodology used in the study, the purpose of the study, the research questions identified, a brief

description of the participants, an explanation of the research instruments, the procedures that were used in

conducting the study, the data collection and analysis procedures, and the expected findings and ethical

issues. The fourth chapter presents, analyzes, and discusses the data collected. Lastly, in the fifth chapter,

the researcher drew conclusions and provided recommendations to the schools administrators, teachers,
 16

practitioners in education and implications for practice and the essential elements necessary for conducting

further research in the field of integrating technology into the K-12 environment.
 17

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Motivating the adult learner to effectively integrate technology into the classroom environment is

one of the challenges facing the majority of teachers and school administrators today. Introducing

computer-assisted instruction in the classroom besides the traditional approaches can motivate students and

significantly enhance student learning. However, teachers and administrators need additional training to

become familiar with the current technologies, to identify the best practices impacting teaching and

learning, and to understand how to effectively incorporate educational technology into the school’s

curriculum and instruction. The literature review in this chapter was focused on technology integration in

the classroom and its impact on teacher beliefs and instructional practices, motivating the adult learner,

research on teacher training, and qualities of effective teachers. It was the intent of the study to reveal that

technology integration into the classroom is an important aspect of teaching effectively and it does enhance

a meaningful learning environment that motivates students to think critically, to construct their own

learning, and to collaborate freely to express their ideas that can lead to innovative solutions.

Integrating Technology into the Classroom

The use of technology for learning at all levels has grown exponentially in recent years from

computer-assisted instruction to the information superhighway to the simple improvements engendered by

the use of personal computers in management and information systems. It seems obvious that this

development calls into question many of the assumptions about adolescent and adult learning as learners

begin to use the technology for communicating and learning. The funding and creation of new learning

practices, the development of the Internet, the growth of multimedia, the use of telecommunications, and

the incorporation of the computer into other tool functions all provide opportunities for learning in a more

meaningful ways.

The increasing number of K-adult classrooms using technology for learning has contributed to

increased attention on the most appropriate instructional design. Imel (2003) explores how adult learners
 18

may benefit from the integration of technology into the education system, stating that the integration of

technology into adult classroom instruction has been found to have a significant contribution on learning.

In adult education, the steady growth and rising expectations of technology is explained by a

technology explosion in American culture and the rise of the Internet as a primary tool for communications,

commerce, and information; the fact that for more than a decade policymakers have engaged in a national

discussion about the perceived shortcomings of adult education programs and the need for new solutions to

an enduring problem; [and] a realization that a majority of American adults who are considered

functionally illiterate will never enroll in a traditional adult education program. Of those who do enroll in

programs, they tend to participate for only short periods of time and drop-out quickly… (Hopey, 1999, p.

26). This development is further driven by the potential of technology to improve both educational

attainment and skill acquisition: adults who use educational technology can acquire greater knowledge and

develop active learning skills, problem solving skills, and critical thinking skills (Hopey, 1999).

Another motivation for the integration of technology into classroom instruction is the increasing

competition in the labor market. In today’s work environment, a common core of specific skills includes

communication skills, teaming skills, and technology skills (Smolka, 2002). Communication skills that are

highly valued include written communication, presentation skills, and conversational skills. However, in

this age of computer software with spelling and grammar checking, many recent college graduates are still

incapable of effectively communicating in writing. In addition, employers value learning to work not only

as an individual contributor but also as a participant on virtual and physical teams. These skills are typically

not learned at the undergraduate level in a normal pedagogical institution. Lastly, learning how to use

technology effectively (e.g., computer applications that facilitate team communications and allow remote

collaboration) adds value to the learners, making them more competitive.

One important question about learning and technology involves the prerequisites to meaningful

learning in the context of technology use in the classroom (Imel, 2003). Following constructivist

arguments, in order for meaningful learning to occur in technology-supported classrooms, technologies

should engage learners in the following areas: (a) knowledge construction, not reproduction; (b)

conversation, not reception; (c) articulation, not repetition; (d) collaboration, not competition; and (e)

reflection, not prescription (Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, 2005). In this light, Imel explains
 19

that the Internet is an ideal medium for developing and supporting informal adult education primarily

because it provides access to information more independently and allows more individual control. Because

of these reasons, the Internet supports learning that is constructivist in nature and that builds on prior

knowledge. Imel also identifies issues that impede learning: access, degree of government control,

incomplete understanding of the learning that occurs, skills, motivations, and the improvement of

technology. In addition, Imel provides a twenty-item annotated bibliography about this theme.

In addition to the Internet (e-learning), adult learners are also encouraged to learn mobile learning

(m-learning) technology. Motiwalla (2005) explores the integration of mobile technology in distance

learning or traditional classroom environments. Specifically, it investigates the usage of W/H devices such

as PDAs and Smart phones for data services like Wireless Access Protocols (WAP), Short Message Service

(SMS), and Wireless Markup Language (WML) in higher education. The WAP protocol has gained global

popularity for data services because of its thin-client architecture and device independence. The thin-client

architecture allows applications to run on the server and transport to W/H devices thereby removing the

need for sophisticated client devices. Despite W/H device popularity with students, not much has been done

to extend e-learning to these devices.

Much research has been conducted in the areas of technology integration in the K-12 classrooms

and at the college and university level. Rawlinson and Bartel (2006) conducted a study on the

implementation of wireless PDA technology in the IT curriculum. The case study dealt with the following

two questions: (a) How was wireless handheld computer technology integrated into the IT curriculum at a

publicly-funded university curriculum? and (b) How effectively? They explained the pertinent issues

encountered and how the issues were successfully resolved. The authors claimed that the first step in

implementing wireless technology in the curriculum was gaining departmental faculty support for the

project. The Department of Information Technology and Administrative Management (ITAM) faculty

voted unanimously to require student purchase and application of wireless PDAs in its Introduction to

Information Technology course. The result was that students who had access to wireless computer

technology produced a higher quality of work, exhibited more self-confidence, displayed greater

enthusiasm, demonstrated an increased depth of knowledge, and were more engaged with other learners as

claimed by the teachers.

 20

A survey was conducted concerning student attitudes toward the PDAs, current applications, and

expected future applications. The translation of the results from Figure 1 (from a sample of thirty-seven

students) in the authors’ study includes the following information:

Respondent Age Respondent Grade Level

25 years (16%) Freshman (11%)
20 years (27%) Sophomore (19%)
21-24 years (57%) Junior (35%)
Senior (35%)

The four tables below illustrate that the PDAs gained popularity among the students and the expected

future applications were favorable as reflected in their responses.

Table 1 presents the results about the students’ prior access to technology, including wireless.

Table 1. Prior Access to Technology (N = 37)

______________________________________________________________________________________
Technology Prior Access Wireless Capable
______________________________________________________________________________________

Desktop computer 33 (89%) 15 (41%)

Cellular phone 28 (76%) 20 (54%)
Notebook computer 19 (15%) 14 (38%)
PDA 4 (11%) 0 (0%)
______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 2 indicates the students’ opinions on the use of PDAs in the introductory class. Their

general uses of PDAs at the time they were enrolled in the IT course encompassed school, work, and

personal use.

Table 2. Student Opinions of PDAs (N = 74)

______________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion Statement Total Mean Standard
Responses (scale 1-4) Deviation
______________________________________________________________________________________
1. When I first learned that PDAs would be required for 74 2.8% 0.87
this class, I was excited.
2. Purchasing and using my PDA has been a valuable 74 3.0% 0.85
experience.
3. The cost of the PDA was acceptable. 71 2.8% 0.75
4. I will continue to use my PDA for school-related 73 3.0% 0.90
activities.
5. I will, or would, if given the opportunity, continue to 74 3.3% 0.72
use my PDA for work-related activities.
6. I will continue to use my PDA for personal activities. 74 3.3% 0.86
7. I recommend that PDAs continue to be a required 72 2.8% 0.97
purchase for all IT 228 students.
______________________________________________________________________________________
 21

Table 3, the PDA applications students learned in the course, shows that PDAs play a significant

role in accessing the World Wide Web, in accessing e-mail, in downloading games, and in file sharing

IrDA (Infrared Data Association).

Table 3. PDA Applications in the Course (N = 37)

______________________________________________________________________________________
Application Responses (Percent)
______________________________________________________________________________________
World Wide Web access 36 (97%)
E-mail 33 (89%)
Games 32 (86%)
File sharing/IrDA 32 (86%)
Scheduler 30 (81%)
File sharing/Bluetooth 29 (78%)
Pocket Word 25 (68%)
Tasks 24 (65%)
Notes 24 (65%)
Contacts 23 (62%)
Mobi-Pocket Reader 22 (59%)
Pocket Excel 11 (30%)
______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4 lists the students’ future application of their PDAs. Twenty-six of the respondents planned

to keep their PDAs following completion of the course; ten students did not; and the remaining student was

undecided.

Table 4. Expected Future PDA Applications (N = 37)

______________________________________________________________________________________
Application Responses (Percent)
______________________________________________________________________________________
E-mail 26 (100%)
World Wide Web access 26 (100%)
Scheduler 24 (92%)
Notes 23 (88%)
Tasks 22 (85%)
Contacts 22 (85%)
Games 22 (85%)
Pocket Word 21 (81%)
File sharing/Bluetooth 17 (65%)
Pocket Excel 15 (58%)
File sharing/IrDA 15 (58%)
Mobi-Pocket Reader 12 (46%)
______________________________________________________________________________________
 22

Since the integration of the PDAs into the curriculum has just started, the key players of the case

study believe that addressing the following recommendations would strengthen the program.

Support from ITS. Completing the Central Washington University (CWU) Information Technology

Services registration and configuration process can be confusing for students. Students were unable to get

their systems to work without one-on-one technical support. As a result, this created a significant workload

for the instructors who provided the technical support that should have been the job of the IT support

department. The instructors recommend that IT support at a university should commit to offering technical

support prior to any department’s beginning a new classroom technology program.

Ongoing Faculty Training and Applications. The program will be more meaningful by requiring

students to use the PDAs in subsequent courses. The best method recommended by the instructors is to

train faculty to provide meaningful technology-based classroom activities and encourage the students to use

their PDAs as part of their daily work.

Funding to Offset Students Costs. Funding in the form of grants, subsidies, or manufacturer

discounts should be pursued as a means of decreasing the financial burden for students.

Enhanced Learning Opportunities. More class time and assignments in the Introduction to

Information Technology course should be dedicated to understanding and applying PDAs. Several students

commented on their course evaluations that they would have liked to have spent more time thoroughly

learning how to use and become more confident with PDA technology.

Development of Wireless PDA Technology. As integrated wireless technology evolves for PDA

applications, it should become user-friendly as well as more consistent and dependable.

Continued Research. The program to integrate PDAs in the classroom is in the early stages.

Continued research is necessary to assess, and reassess, the viability of such a program. Issues such as

securing wireless PDAs from viruses and providing accessibility to all students regardless of physical

abilities need to be addressed immediately.

Impact of Technology on Teacher Beliefs and Instructional Practices

The report prepared by Sargent (2003) from the University of Southern Maine discusses the

impact of the distribution of laptops to teachers and students in Maine. Her findings on the seventh grade
 23

teachers who were surveyed in December 2002 clearly indicated that the use of laptop technology has been

a significant tool in the research for lessons, developing instructional materials, and communicating with

colleagues. The research questions that were tackled to discover the effects of technology in teaching and

learning were (a) What is the impact on how teachers and students construct new knowledge? (b) What is

the impact on teaching behaviors and instructional practices? (c) What is the impact on the contact and

rigor of curriculum and instruction? and (d) What is the impact on teachers’ professional development?

Sargent (2003) states:

Obtaining answers to these core questions will require a multiple-year evaluation. However,
preliminary research has focused on determining how, and to what extent, preconditions or
forerunners for long-range achievements are occurring in the Initiative. In other words, are the
laptops being used at this early stage in such a fashion that will lead to changes in teacher practices
in the future? This report is focused entirely on the question of the impact of the laptop program
on teacher beliefs and instructional practices (p. 5).

Figure 1 from Sargent’s report indicates the percentage of teachers who use the laptop at least a

few times a week or more. The graph shows that approximately 50% of teachers who responded to the

survey indicated that on a six-point scale ranging from Never to Every Day, they use the laptop for these

purposes at least a few times a week or more. Many of them reported that these early uses merely scratch

the surface of the possibilities for this technology but they have been enthusiastic about these beginnings.

Figure 1. Percentage of Teachers Who Use a Few Times a Week or More

 24

As can be seen from the results, one of the most frequent uses of the laptops by teachers is in

communicating with colleagues (55%). For many teachers, the ability to communicate in a more efficient

manner has opened new doors and allowed teachers to exchange curriculum and instructional information

in new and exciting ways. The availability of this learning tool has also encouraged and enabled teachers to

form support networks as they learn to integrate technology. Those involved with the program find that

they are collaborating more frequently and with a larger pool of colleagues.

Given how teachers reported using the laptops in the early part of the school year, Sargent asked

the teachers whether they have seen any positive impacts on their teaching. Figure 2 summarizes the

teachers’ responses to a survey item asking them to rate the impact of the laptop technology on various

aspects of instruction on a seven-point scale ranging from Very Negative to Very Positive.

Figure 2. Percentage of Teachers Reporting Positive Impact of Laptops

The graph reveals that many of the teachers surveyed indicated the laptop was impacting their

instruction in several positive ways. Teachers saw the greatest impact of the Maine Learning Technology

Initiative (MLTI) on their work in planning and presenting lessons, creating integrated lessons, and creating

assignments. They also reported that having the laptop as a tool enabled them, in many cases, to expand

their own knowledge and increase their efficiency. Moreover, 66% of the teachers reported that they see a
 25

positive impact on presenting lessons. Their students are excited about the laptops and they look forward to

lessons in which the technology is included. The teachers surveyed believe they are better prepared with

more up-to-date information. In addition, they feel the laptops are very helpful in developing integrated

lessons and extending learning.

Technology truly plays a significant role in the teaching process by providing alternative teaching

strategies that can increase student learning and make them competitive in the workforce. Global

opportunities are always available for anyone who possesses high level technology skills. Various

educational institutions have recognized the importance of technology in the learning process of students;

other educational institutions are encouraged to consider it a high priority in their action plans.

Motivating the Adult Learner

The adult learning community is recognizing the potential of technology to inspire the

construction of new models of instruction and to accommodate the special needs of adolescents and adults.

However, current applications of technology within adult basic education systems have not taken full

advantage of that potential. While technology-based instruction and integrated learning systems are

commonly used, the full capacity of technology has yet to be explored. One of the major factors is

motivating adults. Motivation can be conceptualized as a learner’s energy and drive to learn, work

effectively, and achieve to their potential at school, and the behaviors that follow from this energy and

drive. Motivation plays a large part in a learners’ interest and the enjoyment of learning in school.

Wlodkowski (1999) magnifies the importance of motivating adults to learn. The author organized

the text to give the reader the most important ideas and information he had found to make effective

instruction a motivationally consistent process that enables optimal achievement and offers inherently

rewarding experience for culturally diverse adult learners and their instructors. Motivation is an intangible

characteristic or quality of an individual who is self-directed and completely focused in terms of doing

something significant for him or her self.

There are two kinds of motivation: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. The former

occurs when people are internally motivated to do something because it either brings them pleasure, they

think it is important, or they feel that what they are learning is morally significant. The latter comes into
 26

play when a student is compelled to do something or act a certain way because of factors external to him or

her (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Motivation is important in all aspects of life such as learning. When there is no

motivation to learn, there is no learning (Walberg and Uguroglu, 1980). The researcher can attest to this in

his personal experience when he recognized that education is very important for survival, recognition, and

acceptance in society as well as the creation of new knowledge and opportunities.

Motivation is important not only because it apparently improves learning but also because it

mediates learning and is a consequence of learning as well (Wlodkowski, 1999). Through observation

during teaching, the motivated students are far more ahead in understanding the material and perform very

well on exams and in answering questions orally in class. Their motivation intensifies their ability to learn

and engage in productive discussions for clarifying important information. Their interest to learn never

yields for any reason whether the subject is important at the time or simply becomes dull and leads to

unknown and nonproductive outcomes. The most eventful issue is the new knowledge being delivered may

be of value later down the road. Wlodkowski further proposed the application of a Motivational Framework

for Culturally Responsive Teaching. He recommended turning the four motivational conditions from the

framework into questions to be used as guidelines for selecting motivational strategies and related learning

activities in the design of any instructional plan. The four motivational conditions are:

1. Establishing inclusion: How do we create or affirm a learning atmosphere in which we feel

respected by and connected to one another? (Best to plan for the beginning of the lesson.)

2. Developing attitude: How do we create or affirm a favorable disposition toward learning

through personal relevance and choice? (Best to plan for the beginning of the lesson.)

3. Enhancing meaning: How do we create engaging and challenging learning experiences that

include learners’ perspectives and values? (Best to plan throughout the lesson.)

4. Engendering competence: How do we create or affirm understanding that learners have

effectively learned something they value and perceive as authentic to their real world? (Best

to plan for the ending of the lesson.)

These four motivational frameworks will help every educator prepare an instructional plan that

will enhance effective learning and meaningful outcomes. To support such frameworks, consider

implementing collaborative learning—where a small group of learners is formed to exchange concerns,

 27

experiences, and expectations; establishing relevant learning goals—ask learners to choose something they

want to research among themselves; developing critical questioning and predicting skills—form research

teams to devise a set of questions to ask in order to make predictions; giving self-assessment—after the

predictions have been verified, ask learners to create their own statements about what they learned about

research from this process.

Using these procedures or frameworks for teaching and learning will contribute significant results

because they are strategies that provide creativity and teaching skill. Wlodkowski’s purpose is to

respectfully evoke, support, and enhance the motivation to learn that all adults possess by virtue of their

own humanity and to make every educator a valuable resource and vital partner in their realization of a

motivating learning experience.

Developing Competent and Caring Teachers for Leadership and Service

The rationale for selecting this literature is that any program or plan for progress will not reach its

expected destination without the competency and the caring attitude of teachers. In The Light in Their Eyes

(Creating Multicultural Learning Communities) by Sonia Nieto (1999) she explicitly expressed her own

caring attitude for her students. Technology is only a tool that every educator can use to support teaching

while students are more inclined to learn from teachers who truly show their passion in delivering

knowledge. The Illinois College Teacher Preparation Program was developed by all teacher education

faculties as well as stakeholders from within and outside the college community. In March 2004 the

Conceptual Framework was revised to respond to feedback from ISBE (Illinois State Board of Education)

staff and to reflect the new Illinois College Mission and Vision Statements adopted by the college’s board

of trustees. The program theme, “Developing Competent and Caring Teachers for Leadership and Service,”

was adopted for all programs leading to teacher licensure (Illinois College Teacher Preparation Program,

2005). The Conceptual Framework is presented in Appendix F.

Characteristics of Effective Teachers

The researcher truly believes that effective teaching is an important component in any learning

environment regardless of how much technology is presented in the classroom. If the teachers lack the
 28

knowledge or skill to actively engage students in learning, the teaching outcomes may not reflect the

expected results or the students may not acquire the learning experience that they need to be successful.

Teachers who possess and display special qualities have proven their effectiveness in the

classroom. One of the important aspects in teaching is the presence of guidelines that contribute to good

practice in engaging the students to better understand the material. Also, teachers can be a powerful driving

force in teaching the relevant information that will contribute to student achievement. In addition, the

charisma exhibited by teachers can motivate students to want to learn and excel. To support these

statements, the author intends to introduce the twelve distinctive behaviors that comprise an inventory of

qualities found in effective teachers identified by Harry Murray (1991) at the University of Western

Ontario and then expanded further by Dr. Peter Saunders (1999) from Western Michigan University. The

twelve distinctive behaviors are listed in Appendix G. The Characteristics of Effective Teachers can be a

guide for teachers in their practice as they work towards integrating technology into their classroom.

In addition to these behaviors, Professor Richard Le Blanc (1998) of York University, Ontario

wrote an article entitled Good Teaching: The Top Ten Requirements that is almost similar to the behaviors

mentioned above but can also have a significant impact on teachers (see Appendix I). It is also assumed

that many other articles have been written addressing the same subject and this research does not discount

such articles that can also contribute to the scholarship practice of teachers.

Educational DNA

Dr. Brian Segal (2001) puts forth the idea of educational DNA that may help in effectively

integrating technology in the K-12 classroom environment. In a speech he explains that, “In this New

World, where the conventional lines of demarcation between information and knowledge are drawn in

quicksand, the opportunities and need for education abounds. Education is the oasis, the idyllic island to

which we will all gravitate.” (para. 7). In this light, Segal sets forth an educational DNA, five strands key to

successful teaching. The first strand is Passion. This does not refer to passion for tools and technology, but

passion about understanding what learning students need and finding the most effective way of delivering

it. This passion is about inculcating in all students information literacy and its enormous benefits. The

second strand relates to Inspiration and Imagination. Segal suggests that there should be inspiration among
 29

the students about the excitement of learning, the value of imagination, and how the combination of

imagination and the proper use of technology can create new heights of understanding and meaning.

The third education DNA strand involves Guidance. Since students have enormous choices and

unlimited access to undigested information, they should be guided to evaluate information. In addition,

guiding them in making critical judgments about the relevance, validity, value, and reliability of

information is critical. The fourth strand of the education DNA concerns Knowledge—one that has both

descriptive and analytic abilities, and one about how best to harness the technology available and how to

leave students with lasting abilities to use for their own learning and imagination. The fifth educational

DNA is Values. Values are the essence of our culture. They shape the way people think and the way we

behave and the way we use technology.

The aforementioned educational DNA as suggested by Segal will contribute significantly towards

the framework for a university program suggested for the study by this writer to enhance teachers’ skills

and competencies in technology. The progress made in education has been a continuous process of

research, experimentation, validation, evaluation, and procurement of solutions for every challenge

presented in the field. Educators are always expected to provide fast and reliable answers to questions that

may require actions for planning before finding the right solution for a particular problem. Incorporating

the educational DNA into the suggested framework will provide additional knowledge for teacher training

and give them the resources to use so they can be effective educators and promote the advancement of great

knowledge to the students (Segal, 2001).

The study may help future researchers devise new technologies and strategies to assist teachers to

cope with the changing culture of today’s generation and to give teachers alternative methods to structure

their delivery of learning. New technologies will help them shape the behaviors of the learners and make

students more receptive to any global trends such as increasing academic competitions worldwide, the

narrowing job market because of substandard skills, and recently, the outsourcing of services by companies

to other countries to increase their profits.

In a recent video message by Chris Dede (1998), the professor from Harvard University stated that

this nation is entering the new Dark Ages in education. He said that “many of us, including the educators,

have a naïve idea about education and the policies at the federal level do hold us back instead of moving
 30

forward.” He claimed that the next decade will bring some light to our education for the next generation

and recommended businesses, educators, and workforce developers bond together. He further claimed that

parents want their children to have economic opportunities better than what they had before the turn of the

century. He also said that the teaching forces are crucial and play a key role in education. Hence, the

information acquired from this research will help to make teachers competent and knowledgeable in

technology by providing them with the professional development they need to enhance their practices and

methods of delivery to the students.

Problem Areas

Kathryn DiPietro (2004) cited three problem areas. The first problem is the inadequate technical

preparation. In general, educators have not adopted technology as an instructional tool. She supported this

statement with the 1998 report from the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) which found that fewer

than half of all teachers were using computers in their teaching, despite beliefs about their effectiveness and

desires to use them. A report by Scheffler and Logan (1999) suggests a reason for this gap between beliefs

and practices: although most of the teachers surveyed expressed the belief that technology is a valuable

teaching tool, fewer than twenty percent felt adequately prepared to integrate technology into the

curriculum. To resolve this inadequacy of teacher preparation to use technology in the classroom, the

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) currently requires all teacher education

institutions to include technology training in their programs.

The second problem mentioned by DiPetro is the persistent inadequacy of technology training for

new teachers. The reason for this issue is teachers have only a few good role models. Even when

technology is readily available, faculty in teacher education programs often fail to use technology in their

own research or teaching (DiPietro, 2004). On the third problem, content of technology courses, DiPietro

discovered that Hardgrave and Hsu in their 2000 survey investigated instructional technology courses at

eighty-eight institutions of higher education belonging to the Holmes Group, a national consortium of

research institutions “committed to making programs of teacher preparation more rigorous and connected

to liberal arts education, research on learning and teaching, and wise practice in schools” (p. 305). It was

found that 50% of the institutions reported addressing and using computer-based instruction (packaged
 31

software such as drill and practice, tutorials, educational games, problem solving, and simulations). The

majority of the institutions identified classroom design, needs analysis, audience analysis, and situated

cognition as topics not covered in the courses (DiPietro, 2004).

Best Practices

As this study unfolded the best practices of teachers for using classroom technology so they can

facilitate learning in K-12 classrooms in the Chula Vista School District in California, an in-depth

exploration of their best methods in teaching using technology were directed and analyzed. To support this

illustration, the research of Goldhaber and Anthony (2005) found that a growing body of research shows

that the quality of the teacher in the classroom is the most qualifying factor predicting student outcomes

(e.g., Ferguson, 1998; Goldhaber 2002; Goldhaber, Brewer, & Eide, 1999; Hanushek, 1999;Wright, Horn,

& Saunders,1997). Their research reflected that the impact of having a high-quality teacher can be

profound. Goldhaber and Anthony cited Hanushek (2002), who finds that, all else equal, a student with a

very high-quality teacher will achieve a learning gain of 1.5 grade level equivalents, while a student with a

low-quality teacher achieves a gain of only 0.5 grade level equivalents. With these findings, it is now clear

that the article written by Dr. Richard Leblanc of York University on what is good teaching (see Appendix

I), list behaviors that contribute towards becoming an effective teacher and York believes that “these

attributes should be rewarded and poor teaching should be remediated with training and development.” It is

from this body of knowledge that the researcher labors with passion and patience to discover significant

literature that will help teachers establish their connections to the students and bridge the gap between low

performance and high academic performance. In addition, the educator who demonstrates great pleasure in

teaching is probably one of the best methods to empower students to learn and be successful in society.

Research Approach Comparisons

Criticisms of each approach should be noted. One criticism of the quantitative research approach

in education is that the researcher’s perspective is not considered in the explanation of the research.

Clearly, there are limitations in a numerical presentation in the complexity of human behavior. The

quantitative research approach often has difficulties in expressing the problems particularly if the
 32

researcher deals with the psychological dimensions in human beings. Additionally, this approach does not

address the individual differences of the subjects. In the qualitative research approach it is difficult to

generalize to other research settings because it is limited by the researcher’s unique viewpoint. In other

words, the theoretical model developed for one research project is difficult to generalize to other research

projects. This approach emphasizes the researcher's decision in both the research design and the analysis of

the data; thus, interpretation of data is greatly influenced by the researcher’s perception. The criticism of

the mixed-method research approach points mainly to the question of standards. In their commentary on

issues in participatory action research, Riger et al. (2004) pose the question “Whose standards are used to

evaluate [research] quality, and what are those standards?” (p. 237). The second question seems to be the

launching pad of the critics in attacking the mixed-methods approach. As a result, the practical issue of how

to make judgments about the quality of diverse styles of research is constantly faced by researchers

advocating this approach. Critics claim that it is impossible to maintain standards across different genres of

research. For example, what standards can be used to evaluate a piece of ethnography as well as a

randomized experiment? It is suggested that the absence of comprehensive standards makes the mixed-

methods approach equivalent to anarchy. This is another way of saying that researchers just go ahead and

do their own thing (Feyerabend, 1975).

Each of the three research approaches has strengths and limitations and each is particularly

appropriate for certain research goals. The decision on which approach should be chosen depends on the

research subject, research aim, and the researcher's belief. However, the author suggests that mixed-method

approach must be considered in this field where data obtained from traditional scientific approaches

(quantitative) and alternative and newer approaches (qualitative) can occur in a mutually tolerant way.

Before discussing the research method selected, a brief comparison of the quantitative, qualitative, and

mixed-methods research approach will be presented along with criticisms of each. A review of selected

literature will attempt to explore the appropriateness of each methodology in a study aimed at determining

the effectiveness of integrating education and technology in a K-12 program to enhance students’ learning

experiences and achievement.

 33

Quantitative Research

Employing a quantitative research approach, Baylor and Ritchie (2002) attempted to identify the

factors that facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using

classrooms. Using four instruments (administrator structured interview, teacher structured interview,

technology use plan evaluation, and teacher survey), this quantitative study examined the effect of seven

factors related to school technology (planning, leadership, curriculum alignment, professional development,

technology use, teacher openness to change, and teacher non-school computer use) on five dependent

measures in the areas of teacher skill (previous technology competency and technology integration),

teacher morale, and perceived student learning (impact on student content acquisition and higher order

thinking skills acquisition).

Quantitative Approach on Technology Competency

Baylor and Ritchie (2002) provide the following results: teacher technology competency was

predicted by teacher openness to change; technology integration was predicted by teacher openness to

change and the percentage of technology use with others; teacher morale was predicted by professional

development and constructivist use of technology; technology impact on content acquisition was predicted

by the strength of leadership, teacher openness to change, and negatively influenced by teacher nonschool

computer use; and technology term impact on higher-order thinking skills was predicted by teacher

openness to change, the constructivist use of technology, and negatively influenced by percentage of

technology use where students work alone. The study by Baylor and Ritchie is drawn from a humanistic

orientation to education and technology. Thus, using a quantitative research approach is practical in

studying the effectiveness of a K-12 technology program.

Qualitative Research in Education Research

A qualitative research approach becomes acceptable in education research concerning the analysis

of human behavior and attitude. The study conducted by Hara and Kling (1999) is a qualitative case study

dealing with students’ frustrations regarding web-based instruction. The study answers the following

questions: (a) How do students’ frustrations in a web-based distance education course inhibit their
 34

educational opportunities? and (b) How do students deal with these frustrations? To address these

questions, Hara and Kling used three methodologies: observation, interview, and document review. The

researchers find a number of frustrations. First, lack of communication cues were found from nonverbal

cues such as gestures, facial expressions, and instructor feedback. Second, technological problems brought

frustration to the students; there was no technical support. Third, instruction ambiguity contributed to the

students’ frustration. In the interview, the students began sharing their frustrations which so overwhelmed

them that they gave up on the formal course content. Two of the students claimed that they would never

take another distance education course.

As applied to the investigation on the effectiveness of a K-12 technology program, qualitative

methods can be used to explore how, for example, learners and teachers perceive the effectiveness of the

program. Interviews and observations can explore the participants’ feelings, behavior, and attitude, which is

largely a determinant of the effectiveness.

Mixed Method Approach

The mixed-methods research approach has largely been applied in studying the relationship

between learning and technology. For example, in investigating the effect of a problem-based hypermedia

learning environment on sixth graders' performance and attitudes, Liu (2004) uses multiple data sources,

both quantitative and qualitative, for the purpose of data triangulation. The motivation for the study is to

find how hypermedia technology can be used as cognitive tools to share the responsibilities of teachers to

provide necessary scaffolding to support students’ learning in a problem-based learning (PBL)

environment.

For the mixed-method, the following instruments were used: a twenty-five item multiple-choice

knowledge test developed to assess students' understanding of the various scientific concepts introduced in

the program; a recommendation form; a nine-item questionnaire aimed to assess students' attitude toward

the PBL environment; and Germann's Attitude Toward Science in School Assessment to measure students’

attitude toward science. For the qualitative method, Liu observed class activities for three weeks and

multiple interviews were conducted with both the students and the teachers.
 35

Liu (2004) finds that the enriched presentation of the knowledge base and the more effective

delivery of cognitive tools through hypermedia technology provide needed scaffolding to all students in the

6th grade classrooms. In effect, not only students in gifted education but also students in regular education

performed well in this technology enhanced PBL environment. Moreover, ESL students or those who have

some learning disability also benefited from using it. The amount of gain in students' science knowledge

and problem-solving skills was related to their prior knowledge level. This study also indicated that

because a large amount of reading was involved, slow readers found this PBL environment challenging. In

the end, Liu calls for more technological support for these students.

Conclusion

This chapter concludes that technology integration is another aspect of teaching and learning that

may have helped most students in the K-12 classroom improved their learning outcomes. Evidence from

the literature showed teachers were motivated in seeking professional guidance to increase their technology

skills so they are able to teach effectively in the classroom. It is also clear that teachers claimed that the use

of technology truly helped them in a more positive way towards planning, doing research, and in presenting

their lessons. The teachers who were involved in the Sargent study indicated an increase in teacher and

student collaboration which can be considered the gateway to meaningful learning. Bridging the gap

between teachers and students will generate continuous dialogue to achieve maximum learning and

practical approach to the creation of new knowledge that can lead to technological advancement for better

teaching. When new technology skills and much improved teaching processes are combined with

motivation, teachers can be powerful in the delivery of knowledge. Additionally, with the constructive

feedback from the students, teachers will be able to design and plan for improving the overall education

process for all. The growing population of scholar practitioners are gradually transforming towards the

adoption of technology to meet the next generation of learners who are fully exposed to on-going

development of newer technologies.

 36

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Purpose of the Study

The present research intended to identify best practices for effectively integrating technology into the

K-12 classrooms of the Chula Vista School District in California. Part of the research included examining

the current training programs designed to assist K-12 teachers in using classroom technology to determine

if they are promoting best practices and identifying recommendations to strengthen the preparation

currently provided to K-12 teachers to enable them to more effectively integrate technology into their

classrooms in the Chula Vista School District in California for successful learning. Similar research has

been done in the past and was reflected in the results by the National Education Association (NEA ) in

which technology was shown to play a role in the achievement of effective learning outcomes for students.

The National Education Association believes that technology in the educational process improves the

learning opportunities for students, improves the quality of instruction, and improves the effectiveness of

educating employees. Technology can provide opportunities to reduce educational inequities (NEA,

resolutions 2006-2007, p. 42). Following the standards laid out by the federal and state departments of

education should produce scholars and productive citizens who can compete in the global job market.

This research study evolved from the desire of the author to contribute new paths of learning that

may lead to a major change in the education arena to help students learn from technology-skilled teachers

and to empower students with the tools needed for success. The study is also focused on the creation of

effective professional development courses to assist teachers in enhancing their competencies in technology

and providing high quality education to the students. According to the Panel on Educational Technology

(1997), there are three primary reasons for lack of preparation in technology training. First, colleges of

education frequently have no better equipment than K-12 institutions do and only a limited inventory of the

types of instructional software used in K-12 classrooms. Second, a large number of college faculty

members are unable to make appropriate use of technology in their own classrooms or are unwilling to try

because of their lack of preparation, anxiety, or disinterest. And third, the teacher preparation curriculum

typically confines experiences with technology to a single course, one that concentrates on learning to use

the technology rather than how to facilitate learning with technology. To support the teacher preparation in
 37

technology training, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 charged the secretary of the U.S.

Department of Education to submit a National Educational Technology Plan. The plan recommends seven

action steps:

1. Strengthen leadership. Educational leaders at all levels must be more tech-savvy and make

more effective use of appropriate expertise in decision making.

2. Consider innovative budgeting. Connect the funding of educational objectives and recognize

opportunities for innovative restructuring and reallocation of existing budgets.

3. Improve teacher training. Improve the preparation of new teachers and ensure online access to

development experiences for all teachers.

4. Support e-learning and virtual schools.

5. Encourage broadband access.

6. Move toward digital content.

7. Integrate data systems. Use the power of technology to improve efficiency and more carefully

track individual student achievement.

Once teachers are knowledgeable in the use of technology and the framework for professional

development is in place, the real challenge that lies ahead is the equal access of technology for all students.

Most schools are not equipped with technology and even though they are wired to the Internet, computers

are limited in numbers and not enough to accommodate the students. The credible witnesses to this

situation are the preservice and the current teachers who are taking educational technology courses at

National University in San Diego, California. They have voiced concerns and shared the experiences at

their schools where they work, claiming that they do not have sufficient technology tools in place because

of inadequate funds or resources. Most of them have conducted garage sales to generate funds to buy the

materials they need to conduct their classes. More often, they do ask the parents to contribute any resource

whenever they can to help the schools discharge their duties and responsibilities to the students.

Research Questions

Research may lead towards the improvement of present conditions or it may generate fresh ideas

for conceiving a new body of knowledge that can contribute immensely towards useful strategies or
 38

methods in implementing solutions to some pressing issues affecting the community of learners. Some of

the significant issues challenging educators in the United States today include the deterioration of academic

performance of school children, the failure of teachers to integrate technology into their instructions, the

failure of the government to provide the necessary tools to every public school, and the lack of actions

among parents and school administrators. The current study intended to answer the following research

questions:

1. What are the best practices for using classroom technology to facilitate learning in K-12

classrooms in the Chula Vista School District in California?

2. Are the currently available training programs designed to assist K-12 teachers in using

classroom technology promoting these best practices in the Chula Vista School District in

California?

3. What recommendations can be made to strengthen the preparation currently provided to K-12

teachers to enable them to more effectively integrate technology into their classrooms in the

Chula Vista School District in California?

Research Design

The researcher employed a mixed-method approach for completing this study. Specifically, the

sequential explanatory method was used for the collection of quantitative data and then followed by the

collection of qualitative data by conducting the semi-structured interview. This method is one of the six

categories under the mixed-method approach. This particular research approach was applicable for the

study as it reflected the responses for the research questions. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-

framework research approaches in education arise from different research needs. Basically, the quantitative

approach pursues facts and is employed when researchers want to acquire statistical truths, while the

qualitative approach recognizes the importance of the researchers’ viewpoint and is used when researchers

want to observe in detail their own research viewpoint. According to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003),

quantitative research assumes that the social environment has an objective reality that is relatively constant

across time and settings, while qualitative research assumes that individuals construct reality in the form of

meanings and interpretations, and that these constructions tend to be transitory and situational.
 39

The dominant methodology in the quantitative approach is to describe and explain the features of

objective reality by collecting numerical data on observable behaviors of samples and by subjecting this

data to statistical analysis. According to Smith (1983), “neutral, scientific language” (p. 9) must be used in

quantitative research in pursuing exact facts. This means that the research itself must be expressed by

discrete digits. Using this approach, in order to make generalizations, the objectivity of the research is

emphasized by using neutral scientific language. The researcher thus becomes an objective observer (Carr

& Kemmis, 1986).

On the other hand, the qualitative approach aims to discover meanings and interpretations by

studying cases intensively in natural settings and by subjecting the resulting data to analytic induction (Gall

et al., 2003). According to Creswell’s (2003) explanation, quantitative studies are based on post-positivist

claims for developing knowledge, using experiments and surveys, and collecting data on predetermined

instruments that yield statistical data. On the other hand, qualitative studies use constructivist perspectives

or advocacy/participatory perspectives, or both, as well as narratives, phenomenologies, grounded theory

studies, or case studies as strategies of inquiry. Qualitative research in education maintains that the

researcher's subjectivity is central; the researcher's viewpoint and value judgments are deeply connected to

the research. With this approach, research facts and the researcher's value judgments or interpretations are

inseparable. Thus the researcher becomes an insider to the research (Carr & Kemmis, 1986).

The third research approach seeks to employ principles of both the quantitative and qualitative

approaches. Central to the discussion of the rationale behind the mixed-methods strategy is the fact that

knowledge is accumulated from a variety of sources in a variety of ways; therefore, methodological

diversity (Fiske & Shweder, 1986) is needed. Basically, the mixed-methods approach proposes that

traditional scientific approaches (quantitative) and their alternatives (qualitative) have their place and

should be valued. In the words of Barker, Pistrang, and Elliott (2002),

no single approach to research is best overall; rather, what is important is that the methods be
appropriate for the questions under investigation. No single research method is inherently superior
to any other: all methods have their relative advantages and disadvantages (p. 245).

Instead of setting one approach against another, it is more fruitful to follow a strategy of

integration (Campbell, 1974, as cited in Tebes & Kraemer, 1991). According to Creswell (2001), in this

mixed-methods approach, the researcher tends to base knowledge claims on pragmatic grounds; the mixed-
 40

methods approach is consequence-oriented, problem-centered, and pluralistic. This approach also involves

collecting data, either simultaneously or sequentially, to best understand research problems. In addition,

data collection includes gathering both numeric information (e.g., on instruments) as well as text

information (e.g., through interviews) so that the final database represents both quantitative and qualitative

information. Mixed-method research approach was used in this study as it applied appropriately with the

objectives and the expected outcomes of the research. The main rationale for selecting this research

approach is the greater chance of improving the quality of the results and to provide extensive

understanding on the analysis of the responses from the research inquiries of this study.

In examining the effectiveness of a K-12 technology program, the mixed-methods approach

proved to be beneficial because it allowed the researchers to take a pragmatic approach to research

methodology, using whatever methods are appropriate for a given question. Thus, the researcher may use

quantitative methods and instruments in determining the correlation between demographic profiles and

perceived effectiveness of the program. At the same time, the researcher may use qualitative methods such

as interviews, focus groups, or observations in determining the strengths and weaknesses of the program

according to the participants.

The sequential explanatory strategy of mixed-method research approach has been selected for this

study. In the words of Creswell (2003), the sequential explanatory strategy is the most straightforward of

the six major mixed-method approaches. He also asserted that it is characterized by the collection and

analysis of quantitative data followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data. It was used

primarily to examine the best practices for using classroom technology to facilitate learning in K-12

classrooms in the Chula Vista School District in Chula Vista, California. This research approach was also

used to discover if the currently available training programs in the Chula Vista School District are designed

to assist K-12 teachers in using classroom technology promoting these best practices. The results of the

study may provide the educators, administrators, curriculum writers, and policy makers a basis for the

adoption or creation of professional development courses, ideas for improving the technology plans at the

school districts, and increased collaboration among scholars for generating new knowledge.

The mixed-method research approach, specifically the sequential explanatory strategy can address

the multiple questions being asked from the four quantitative survey instruments (Appendices A, B, C, &
 41

E) and one qualitative survey instrument (Appendix D) designed to tackle this particular study. The survey

instruments have been successfully used in previous research related to the use of technology, the attitudes

of educators towards technology, and uses and effects of mobile computing devices. Numerous studies

have been conducted in the past about technology; however, the studies did not really address technology

integration in the curriculum for classroom instruction nor was the use of best practices by teachers in

technology integration explored. Technology integrated classrooms do exist on some schools, colleges, and

universities campuses and the question remains how effective the teachers, instructors, and professors are

in the use of the technology to enhance students’ learning and significantly increase their learning

outcomes. The mixed-method approach was selected so that the researcher will use the qualitative data

from the interview instrument to confirm or validate the responses from the quantitative instruments.

By looking at educational phenomenon through both quantitative and qualitative lenses, mixed-

methods approach is intended to ensure dependable feedback on a wide range of questions, benefit an in-

depth understanding of the programs, display a holistic perspective, and enhance the validity, reliability,

and usefulness of the full set of findings (Stufflemean, 2001). According to Creswell (2003), the qualitative

research approach is useful when (a) participants cannot be observed directly, (b) participants can provide

historical information, and (c) it allows the researcher “control” over the line of questioning. On the other

hand, limiting factors surrounding this approach are (a) it provides “indirect” information filtered through

the views of the interviewees, (b) it provides information in a designated “place” rather than the natural

field setting, (c) researcher’s presence may bias responses, and (d) people are not equally articulate and

perceptive. The advantages of the quantitative research approach are the following: (a) reality is

independent of human understanding, (b) reality can be defined as separate and observable variables, (c)

the most accurate way to measure variables is individually and in isolation, and (d) researchers do

understand reality by defining all pertinent variables (Bowland College, 2007). In the words of Simon &

Francis (2001), quantitative research rigor is reflected in narrowness, conciseness, and objectivity and leads

to rigid adherence to research designs and precise statistical analysis.

Advantages of using mixed-methods are that they complement each other in ways that are

important to the evaluation audiences (Stufflemean, 2001). Quantitative methods provide relatively

standardized, efficient, amenable information, which can be easily summarized and analyzed (Luo &
 42

Dappen, 2005). In the words of Luo & Dappen, “qualitative methods add contextual and cultural

dimensions, which deepen the study by providing more natural information.” Therefore, the researcher

used the qualitative survey instrument, Appendix D Interview Questions to confirm or validate the

responses from the quantitative survey instruments mentioned in the next paragraph. The responses from

the Interview questions increased the data reliability for the Professional Development Survey, the

Principal Survey, and the Teacher Survey instruments. One question from the Interview asks: How is

technology changing the way you teach? and one statement from the Professional Development Survey

reads: I would like more opportunities to observe other teachers using technology (yes/no). One question

from the Principal Survey asks: How important is technology? and is answered using the Likert scale 1-7

ranging from Not Important, Somewhat Important, and Extremely Important. Linking all of the interview

answers and the responses from the survey instruments will give the researcher meaningful data that can

provide useful information for the audiences in education as well as the future planners for designing

courses that are filled with innovative technology for the teachers to integrate in their instructional

practices.

The quantitative research instruments for the study—the Professional Development of Teachers

Survey, Principal Survey, Teacher Survey, and the Online Survey of Students who attended National

University on Campus and via Distance Learning— provided statistically reliable and generalizable results.

Findings can be generalized to a larger population and direct comparisons can be made between two

corpora, so long as valid sampling and significance techniques have been used (Bowland College, 2007).

The preceding illustrations offer a significant rationale for using the mixed-method research approach for

this study.

In summary, by implementing mixed-method research approach for this study, valid and more

reliable data revealed the specific best practices of teachers and unfolded the true technological climate of

the Chula Vista School District. The researcher’s rationale for selecting this approach is the freedom to

choose the methods and procedures and be able to integrate the quantitative and qualitative data into one by

using statistical analysis software. The researcher intended to make recommendations to strengthen the

preparation currently provided to K-12 teachers to enable them to more effectively integrate technology

into their classrooms in the Chula Vista School District. Planning and developing better teaching and
 43

learning for teachers from the results of the study can provide powerful tools to transform the present

methods of teaching by identifying the best practices for using classroom technology to facilitate learning

in K-12 classrooms. With this in mind, technology can spark success for every educator in all levels from

kindergarten to graduate degree programs. Perhaps this research will stimulate educators and researchers to

perform further study in the integration of technology inside the classroom using the best practices possible

to expand the learning process and surpass the academic standards set forth by NCLB Act of 2001.

Selection of Participants

The participants of this study were elementary teachers (female between the ages 25 to 60 with

one year minimum teaching experience in the Chula Vista Elementary School District) in the city of Chula

Vista, California and preservice teachers–i.e., teachers who are taking their technology courses at National

University. The student teachers taking the online course are scattered throughout California, from the

southern border to Sacramento. Both groups were required to take the course as a component of their

teacher certification. Most of the participants were female, ranging from 25 to 60 years of age. Twenty

percent were preservice teachers who were clearing their certifications for single or multiple subject

credentials and have started substitute teaching; some have acquired a position as assistant teachers.

Approximately 80% of the student teachers have been teaching for one year, and some have been teaching

for over 20 years. Some of the students are also school administrators who were required to be certified as

mandated by the NCLB Act of 2001.

Other participants were the principals (between the ages of 45 to 65 male and female with over 10

years of teaching experience) of the elementary schools in the city of Chula Vista. The principals were

valuable source of information since most of the school administrators were attempting to meet the

requirements set forth by action steps from NETP (National Educational Technology Plan). They have

become involved in the planning phase of the technology plan for their particular school and remained the

ultimate enforcer of the plan to promote teacher training and to keep their technology skills current.

This research was intended to motivate the participants and allowed them to generate creative and

innovative ideas that they can share with their fellow educators. The participants contributed significant

knowledge towards the study, provided specific clarification or answers for the inquiries, and exerted
 44

influence on trying new approaches and strategies to develop solutions for the inevitable issues requiring

immediate attention to improve the educational process.

Research Procedures

The employment of the mixed-methodologies approach for this research achieved the most valid

results that were used to answer the three research questions planned for this study. It is hoped that data

collected in this study will contribute to the construction of technology courses that will help the preservice

teachers improve their skills and make them more competent in the use of technology. Over the past 10

years, researchers, educators, and administrators have debated the value and effect of technology in

elementary and secondary education (Kay, 2006). In Kay’s words,

In spite of the conflicting results reported on the effectiveness of technology in the K-12
educational environment, educational policy specialists and administrators have made concerted
efforts to increase the presence of technology in classrooms, specifically focusing on student-to-
computer ratio and high-speed Internet access (p. 60).

Research question #1 asks: What are the best practices for using classroom technology to

facilitate learning in K-12 classrooms in the Chula Vista School District in California? This question was

answered from the data collection that was extracted from the questions presented in Appendix C (Teacher

Survey Instrument) and from Appendix E (Online Survey of Students Attending National University on

Campus and via Distance Learning).

Research question #2 asks: Are the currently available training programs designed to assist K-12

teachers in using classroom technology promoting these best practices in the Chula Vista School District in

California? This question was answered from the data collection that was extracted from the questions

presented in Appendix A (Professional Development of Teachers Survey), and from Appendix B (Principal

Survey Instrument).

Research question #3 asks: What recommendations can be made to strengthen the preparation

currently provided to K-12 teachers to enable them to more effectively integrate technology into their

classrooms in Chula Vista School District in California? This question was answered from the data

collection presented in Appendix D (Interview). Five teachers were requested to participate in a semi-

structured face-to-face interview.

 45

Upon completion of the data collection, the data was analyzed by using a software program

appropriate for quantitative and qualitative studies and mixed-methods approach. The software that was

used for the analysis of data was imbedded within the program web-based analysis service called

surveymonkey.com. The online survey service has a built-in analysis program in place that translated the

results upon completion of the online survey.

The research process commenced with the distribution of Appendix B (Principal Survey

Instrument) to 30 public elementary school principals and 7 public charters (K-6) principals for a total of 37

principals. Appendix A (Professional Development of Teachers Survey) and Appendix C (Teacher Survey

Instrument) were distributed to 10 teachers at each grade level at the public elementary schools and the

public charters for a total of 90 teachers. Lists of the teacher’s names were requested from the principals of

each school, and the researcher selected the participants at random. Then Appendix D (Interview

Questions) was conducted with a total of 5 teachers from the public elementary school; these 5 teachers

were selected from the school district using the same process (random selection). Finally Appendix E

(Online Survey of Students Attending National University on Campus and via Distance Learning) was

published through the survey service provided by surveymonkey.com and approximately 155 student

teachers belonging to various school districts across the state were invited to participate.

The researcher attempted to meet with the principals and teachers face-to-face during the delivery

of the instruments and successfully attained this goal. It was also a great opportunity to have been able to

observe the physical environment of the schools and was able to determine whether technology exists or if

it was being implemented. Since the participants of the study would benefit from the research the

researcher did not offer any gift or incentive for participating in the study.

The entire package of survey instruments (questionnaires) included a cover letter that explained

and/or described the purpose of the research, a release form that has been approved by IRB (Institutional

Review Board) from SOE (School of Education), Capella University, and a self-addressed return envelope.

Immediately after receipt of the survey from the respondents, a thank-you note was mailed to each of the

participants. In the letter it was mentioned that they will receive a free copy of the research once it is

completed.
 46

Instruments

The first instrument used for the research was Appendix A (Professional Development of

Teachers). This instrument contained questions that supported the quantitative method of study to

determine the percentage of teachers who are taking steps towards professional development in educational

technology and if the districts where they work support them in acquiring the skills they need to be

competent in the classroom. This particular instrument was used previously by Dr. Pedro Hernandez-

Ramos (2005) on his research entitled Understanding Teachers’ Use of Technology in Silicon Valley

Schools and with his permission this instrument was distributed to the participants defined in this study to

discover if the teachers in the city of Chula Vista and across the state have a specific plan for enhancing

their technology skills.

Appendix B (Principal Survey) identified the number of schools that have a technology plan in

place. This instrument was borrowed from the research done by Williams, Sochats, Kyrish, and Kiely (n.d.)

entitled Technology and the Classroom: Current Practices in the Pennsylvania School System. This

instrument reflected important data from the schools that were sampled in the study, such as the extent to

which technology was available for use in the classroom. Training the teachers in the effective use of

technology is one of the most important aspects in educating school children. If teachers lack this skill to

actively engage their students, students may not learn what they need to succeed.

A third instrument, Appendix C (Teacher Survey), was another quantitative tool that measured the

exposure of teachers to technology and its availability for training to enhance their skills in the classroom.

This survey provided useful data on what else was needed or was necessary for teachers to develop their

knowledge in educational technology and to promote innovation in learning to improve students’

performance and outcome.

The fourth instrument, Appendix D (Interview Questions), was a personal interview of the

participants. Interviews was a qualitative approach that provided well-grounded information about some

possible recommendations to strengthen the preparation currently provided to K-12 teachers to enable them

to more effectively integrate technology into their classrooms in the Chula Vista School District. This

instrument was referenced in the research paper entitled Teaching with Technology: A Case Study of

Teacher’s Perceptions of Implementing Computers into the Classroom by Susan M. Gay. The advantages
 47

of doing a face-to-face interview is its usefulness when participants cannot be observed directly, when

participants can provide historical information, and it allows the researcher to “control” the line of

questioning (Creswell, 2003, p. 186).

Finally, Appendix E (Online Survey of Students Attending National University) was an instrument

that was used by U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1999). The

distance education (online learning) student teachers were invited to participate in this online survey. This

method was significant for the entire study because of the various locations of the participants. The overall

results for the questions yielded relatively coherent findings that reflected the true conditions currently

existing in their schools and whether effective frameworks in technology training were actually in place.

The online survey provided supplementary supporting data for the rest of the instruments (Appendix A-D)

that were used in this research. The surveys were installed for hosting at surveymonkey.com where the

participants can log on and post their reply to the questions for further analysis.

Hypotheses

In order to discover the specific best practices/methods for using classroom technology to

facilitate learning in K-12 classrooms, it was necessary to investigate the characteristics teachers need to be

effective in their teaching. In order to train teachers to become competent in technology skills and integrate

them into the classroom instructions, it was necessary to assess if there were available training programs

designed to assist K-12 teachers in using classroom technology promoting these best practices. These are

the two hypotheses of the study that need answers in order to enhance student learning outcomes and allow

teachers to promote learning in a more meaningful way.

Data Collection

Research question #1 asks: What are the best practices for using classroom technology to

facilitate learning in K-12 classrooms in the Chula Vista School District in California? The data collected

will come from the Teacher Survey Instrument (see Appendix C) and the Online Survey of Students

Attending National University on Campus and via Distance Learning (see Appendix E).
 48

The Teacher Survey Instrument was represented on a table depicting the exposure of students to

technology in classroom instruction. The percentage of the lesson plans that integrate technology was

analyzed using a statistical analysis software program from surveymonkey.com. The amount of time the

teachers spend each day using technology in their classrooms and the amount of time the students are

expected to use technology each day went through statistical analysis. The data analysis came mainly from

the following:

1. Statement item 9: Indicate your enthusiasm for using technology. (using Likert-scale from 1

to 7 with medium point, from No Enthusiasm to Very Enthusiastic).

2. Question 10: How has technology changed the teaching process in your classroom? (using

Likert scale 1 to 7 with medium point, Not At All to Totally Changed It).

3. Question 11: How has technology changed the learning process in your classroom? (using

Likert scale 1 to 7 with medium point, Not At All to Totally Changed It).

Research question #2 asks: Are the currently available training programs designed to assist K-12

teachers in using classroom technology promoting these best practices in the Chula Vista School District in

California? The data collected came from the Professional Development of Teachers Survey (see Appendix

A), and the Principal Survey Instrument (see Appendix B).

Research question #3 asks: What recommendations can be made to strengthen the preparation

currently provided to K-12 teachers to enable them to more effectively integrate technology into their

classrooms in the Chula Vista School District in California? This question was answered from the data

collection that was extracted from the questions presented in the Interview Questions (see Appendix D).

In recognition of teacher development needs, many states have initiated curriculum-based

integration programs in recent years to help teachers integrate technology into the classroom (Zhao &

Bryant, 2005). According to Zhao and Bryant, the current teaching force needs to be better supported

through the provision of technology integration specialists who can support classroom technology

integration via mentoring and/or team teaching. The data that was collected from the Professional

Development of Teachers Survey revealed if there was sufficient or adequate technical training and support

for teachers. Again, Zhao and Bryant further disclosed that technology training alone did not lead to

teachers’ frequent and high levels of use of technology in the classroom. A technology mentor or follow-up
 49

training is necessary to help technology trained teachers digest and implement what they learned from the

initial technology training, to better prepare them in addressing challenges in using technology, and to

guide them to utilize technology and technological resources to enhance teaching and student learning (

Zhao & Bryant, 2005, p. 60).

The data for this survey were presented in a table illustrating the satisfaction of the staff with

regard to the teacher training program and the availability of time to practice prior to the integration of

technology into the learning arena. The technical proficiency of the teachers was measured by using the 4-

point Likert scale to agree/disagree with the statements such as the following: (a) “Are technology

workshops available that can be attended by teachers on a regular basis to update their technology skills?”

(b) “Are the school administrators maintaining a technology plan with milestones to achieve excellence in

the integration of technology by teachers into their classrooms? (c) “I feel that the school district provides

many in-service opportunities to train teachers to design lessons that integrate technology.” (d) “I believe

teachers need release time to collaborate with technology support staff to design effective lessons that

integrate technology.” and (e) “The Internet—and the Web, in particular—is now the best medium for me

to learn about almost anything.”

The Principal Survey Instrument is another quantitative tool that was used for analyzing the

availability of technology and training in teachers’ classrooms. The principals are generally knowledgeable

about the true state of their entire organization. Truthful and unbiased responses revealed information that

can be useful in improving the performance of their students. The data from this instrument were analyzed

primarily from section D (School Principal Information) using the scale Not Important to Extremely

Important with a neutral point (Likert scale 1 to 7) on question 1: “How important is technology?” from

three perspectives: administratively, for instruction, and for community building. Responses to questions 5

through 8 in section D will use a 1 to 7 Likert scale with a medium point ranging from Not At All,

Somewhat, and Totally Changed It.

The Interview Questions provided qualitative data that depicted the experiences, frustrations, or

limitations of teachers as they obtained the required skills to use technology in their teaching. The results

were presented in a full matrix table representing the applicable data emerging from the three questions that

reflected the participants’ enthusiasm for using technology, how technology changed the teaching process,
 50

and how technology changed the learning process in the classroom. The researcher explained the

significance of the data to show whether or not technology integration increases the chances of success in

teaching and in student’s academic performance. Also, the researcher used the confirmation survey

interview which is a structured interview that produced evidence to confirm earlier findings (Gall et al.,

2003). It was important to determine the real culture of the teacher’s environment so the researcher could

obtain relatively reliable data to recommend solutions for enhancing teachers’ skills or competencies in

integrating technology into their classroom instruction. Moreover, the analysis may shed light on how

satisfied are the teachers regarding training programs aimed at improving their skills in using technology.

For the study, the researcher purposely selected a total of five elementary school teachers who

participated in the face-to-face interviews. The major aim of the interview was to gain insights on what

teachers think about the combination of web-based training and mentoring. The interview also discovered

firsthand how the teachers used technology in their curriculum. In addition, the interview helped to identify

the special needs of K-12 teachers in training programs aimed at improving their skills in using technology.

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with the teachers. Unlike structured interviews which

are standardized and do not allow the interviewer to deviate from the questions (Saunders, Lewis, &

Thornhill, 2003), this type of interview does not limit response of the interviewees. Open-ended questions

will be asked and will help the researcher explore the topic in more detail and produce a fuller account of

the teachers’ experiences.

Upon the completion of the principal and teacher surveys, professional development survey, face-

to-face interviews, and the online survey, the resulting data from the various instruments provided the

answers to the questions of whether there were effective technology training programs or an academic

framework for preservice teachers as well as for current teachers. The data revealed the characteristics and

attitudes of teachers who used technology for teaching. The study produced a discovery that the

administrators of the schools do support technology training for their teachers. Finally, the study may also

generate action plans for the school administrators that can change the direction of their technology climate

of their schools and help the teachers attain the technology skills they need to enhance and improve

student’s learning outcomes.

 51

The research should reflect that technology will continue to play a big role in education and its

significance to society will remain as the main mover of knowledge. The researcher of this study has

observed that technology integration is important in all aspects of education. Technology extends man’s

capabilities beyond his limits by allowing him to communicate ideas, solidify understanding, and transform

ideas into a new product or invention. Data analysis should provide the necessary information that can be

used to construct the frameworks of study for technology training to help the preservice teachers and

present teachers obtain the skills in technology for their practice.

Ethical Issues

In the process of conducting this research, the researcher took great care to protect the privacy of

the participants and did not compromise or release any information that may seriously affect the

participants’ personal being. The researcher strictly followed the provisions laid out by the Institutional

Review Board (IRB) from the School of Education (SOE) at Capella University and performed the study in

a professional manner, keeping the participant’s identity within the boundaries of the research.

The participants were told the purpose of the research and its significance in helping the preservice

teachers gain the skills in technology and the knowledge on how to understand the focus of the research so

they would provide accurate responses to the questions and integrate it into their teaching and learning.

Ample time was taken to help the participants with the instruments. The researcher focused on the data

collection effort and exercised extra precautions to insure confidentiality of participants’ responses and

respected them for their decisions regardless of their role in the execution of the research.

In closing, the researcher protected the selected participants from the start to the end of the study

and properly handled any confidential information in his possession. The researcher kept an audit record

for every action taken to maintain the integrity of the participants’ personal information. And, as stated by

the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the data that were received from them was kept in a secured, fully

locked cabinet to prevent others from accessing the information.

 52

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Summary of Primary Results

The purpose of this study was to identify best practices for effectively integrating technology into

the K-12 classroom, to investigate if the current training programs designed to assist K-12 teachers in using

classroom technology are promoting these best practices, and to make recommendations on how to

strengthen the current preparation provided to K-12 teachers to more effectively integrate technology into

their classrooms. For this study the researcher selected a mixed-methods approach, obtaining the

quantitative data from four survey instruments and the qualitative data from a semi-structured interview of

five teachers.

The quantitative data were obtained from Professional Development of Teachers Survey (see

Appendix A), Principal Survey Instrument (see Appendix B), Teacher Survey Instrument (see Appendix

C), and Online Survey of Students Attending National University on Campus and via Distance Learning

(see Appendix E); the qualitative data were obtained from Interview Instrument (see Appendix D). Ninety

teachers responded to the Professional Development of Teachers Survey, 5 principals responded to the

Principal Survey, 47 teachers responded to the Teacher Survey, 5 teachers—one each from the 5 different

elementary schools—responded to the Interview, and 156 teachers responded to the Online Survey.

Teacher participants were elementary teachers in the Chula Vista California School District, preservice

teachers clearing their certifications for single or multiple subject credentials, and student teachers scattered

throughout California taking the online course. The principals were from the elementary schools in Chula

Vista.

The collected data were analyzed to identify the principals who support their staff and teachers in

providing technology hardware and software for inclusion into teaching and learning inside the classrooms.

The data provided by the principals indicate that the schools do have technology plans in place with

timelines towards the installation of computers and associated equipment in the classrooms.

Based on this information, the principals are working very hard to implement technology into their

schools by executing their technology plans and securing the needed funding to meet the mandated
 53

standards of the State of California. Funding the technology plans is one of the biggest issues every

California school faces.

Listed below is a summary of results for rating average for the four data collection instruments.

Table 5. Summary of Results for the Rating Average for all Quantitative Instruments
______________________________________________________________________________________
Research Research # of # of Rating
Approach Instrument Items Respondents Average
______________________________________________________________________________________
Quantitative Appendix A 24 90 2.20
Professional Development

Quantitative Appendix B 29 5 5.26

Principal Survey

Quantitative Appendix C 30 47 4.86

Teacher Survey

Quantitative Appendix E 21 163 2.27

Online Survey
______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 6 and Table 7 showed the results for consistency reliability of the data that were extracted

from the survey instruments (Teacher Survey Appendix C and Online Survey Appendix E respectively).

Table 6 represented the percentage of the participants’ response for all items asked under the category of

Teacher Survey. Incredibly, use of technology yielded 87% and the home use of computers yielded 100%.

Table 6. Summary of Results for the Percentage of Respondents for Teacher Survey
______________________________________________________________________________________
Teacher Survey # of Items # of Respondents Percentage
______________________________________________________________________________________
1. Level of training received 3 22 51.20%
2. Use of Technology 10 40 87.00%
3. Years of technology use 1 39 86.70%
4. Home use of computers 7 47 100.00%
5. Enthusiasm for using technology 1 11 23.40%
______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 7 represent the responses of 156 participants who indicated that they used computers for

instruction and Internet for class time and at home is popular and gained full acceptance from the users.
 54

Table 7. Summary of Results for the Rating Average for Online Survey
______________________________________________________________________________________
Online Survey # of Items # of Respondents Rating Average
______________________________________________________________________________________
1. Number of computers in use for 4 156 4.67
instructions, for Internet.
2. Use of computers or Internet for 4 156 4.67
class time, at home.
3. Assign students work that 9 136 2.58
involves computer use or the Internet.
4. Frequency of computer use by 7 138 2.43
students during class time.
5. Availability of computers and 9 101 4.26
extent of use.
6. Extent of use of computers or 11 101 2.66
the Internet at school or home.
7. How well prepared are you to 1 99 3.01
use computers and the Internet for
classroom instruction.
8. Extent that prepared you to use 5 102 3.26
computers and the Internet.
9. Hours of formal professional 1 101 2.93
development.
10. School or district support on 3 97 1.42
technology training.
11. Types of training available and 6 101 51.50
participation.
12. Types of incentives available 7 77 1.53
for participation in training.
13. Technology coordinator 1 71 74.70
available.
14. Computer-related assistance. 5 78 2.79
15. Barriers to your use of school 13 95 2.77
computers or the Internet for
instruction.
16. District policy in place that 1 82 90.10
limit student access to
inappropriate material.
17. Years of employment as a 2 89 100.00
teacher and grade level.
18. Main teaching assignment 10 88 18.20
(field or subject).
______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 8 and Table 9 shows the results for Rating Average that were extracted from the survey

instruments Appendix A and Appendix B respectively.

 55

Table 8. Summary of Results for the Rating Average for Professional Development
______________________________________________________________________________________
Professional Development #of Items # of Respondents Rating Average
______________________________________________________________________________________
1. Do school districts provide 1 34 41.50
adequate technical training and
support for trainers?

2. Teachers attitudes towards 14 64 71.90

technology.

3. Administrative support 9 43 2.70

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 9. Summary of Results for the Rating Average for Principal Survey
______________________________________________________________________________________
Principal Survey #of Items # of Respondents Rating Average
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. Curriculum areas use technology 6 5 10.00
the most in building.
2. Technology use by 6 4 80.00
Administrator.
3. Technology support for 2 5 10.00
classroom teacher.
4. Percentage of teachers with 5 1 50.00
advance training.
5. Computers use at school 9 4 10.00
6. Importance of technology 3 5 6.60
7. Technology changed the teaching 1 5 4.60
process.
8. Technology changed the 1 5 4.20
learning process.
9. Technology changed 1 4 6.75
administrator process.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 10 shows the summary of Semi-Structured Interview of Five Teachers.

Table 10. Summary of Semi-Structured Interview of Five Teachers

Question Responses
1. Could you describe your experience in acquiring Use of Internet; united video streaming; technology
technology knowledge and skills from web-based courses; from credential program; teacher academy;
training and mentoring? practical experience.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 10. Summary of Semi-Structured Interview of Five Teachers (continued)
Question
3. How do you try to overcoming these frustrations
and limitations?
4. Which types of teaching strategies appear to be
most successful when you are using technology?
5. How long do you think it will take you to infuse
technology into your teaching in the way you
envision it?
6. What types of support would help you continue
your progress in using technology in your
classroom?
7. What advice would you give to a teacher Who
has a desire to begin the process of including
technology in their instruction?
8. Identify the most important factor or factors that
will determine whether you continue to plan for and
use technology in your classroom lessons?
9. What are your worst fears about the process of
incorporating technology into your teaching?
10. What are your best hopes for this process of
incorporating technology into your teaching?
11. What do you think of the online learning you
have dealt with?
12. Are you completely satisfied with the content of
training?
.
56
Responses
Download from home; report the breakdown to the
district; install new computers; increase proficient
use of technology through training; use free time to
do it with students; referring to books.
PowerPoint slides; document camera; overhead
projector; linking television via the Internet;
pictures on the Internet; group lecture by showing
videos; trial and error; modeling; alpha smart
keyboard; DVD player; laptop for students; visual
aids.
Two to three years; ability to obtain training;
implementation of Web Quest; absence of
hardware; workshop and then apply the skills
learned in class, no definite time.
Professional development training; mentoring;
taking computer classes; grade level training;
practice the skills through hands-on, small scale
workshops.
Put forth the effort in learning technology; use
technology as much as possible; assess the presence
of technology; start small scale training; embrace
technology.
Accessibility; money for funding technology;
newsletter; availability of resources; time.
Ineffective use; everything will be technology;
mandated use of technology without training; it
takes time to get started; time out to learn the basics.
Preparing students to be competitive; training will
make teaching a lot easier; people benefits from
technology; part of daily plan for assessment;
second nature for the students; get students excited
and engaged.
Did not feel that online is effective; never shown
how to use technology; easy and positively
appropriate; hard to troubleshoot inoperative
computers and related equipment; convenient.
Not satisfied with the content; was able to learn
techniques; need exposure to experiments.
 57

Data Analysis

Research Question One

What are the best practices for using classroom technology to facilitate learning in K-12

classrooms in the Chula Vista School District in California?

The responses to this research question came from the 30-question Teacher Survey and the 21-

question Online Survey. Forty-seven teachers completed the Teacher Survey Instrument and 156 teachers

and preservice teachers participated on the Online Survey. The first eight item questions from the Teacher

Survey dealt with the type and level of training they received. They were also asked to describe their use of

technology in terms of word processing, spreadsheet, database management, e-mail, video conference,

graphics software, programming language, electronic bulletin board and the years of technology use. The

amount of time using technology in their classroom, the percentage of lesson plans that integrate

technology, and the amount of time the students expected to use technology were asked. The responses for

the eight questions yielded a limited amount of data that is truly insignificant to represent it quantitatively

in this report. However, the following favorable results from the survey are hereby presented on Tables 11,

12, and 13 representing the data obtained from statement 9: Indicate your enthusiasm for using technology

and questions 10 and 11 respectively of section A of the Teacher Survey (How has technology changed the

teaching process in your classroom? How has technology changed the learning process in your

classroom?). A Likert-scale range from 1 to 7 was used for statement 9. The rating average (the scale of

measurement of a defined characteristic to a certain level degree of ranking the data according to its

significance within the organization) for these results clearly indicated that the enthusiasm for using

technology is very close to the 7th scale which is 5.74.

Table 11. Enthusiasm for Using Technology (N=47)

No enthusiasm Some Very enthusiastic Rating Response

enthusiasm average count
Level of 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.6% 27.7% 38.3% 23.4%
enthusiasm 5.74 47
(0) (0) (0) (5) (13) (18) (11)

______________________________________________________________________________________
 58

Based on the Teacher Information in section A of the Survey, teachers with less than 1 year of

technology use is 4.4% (2 respondents), 1-3 years is 8.9% (4 respondents), and those with 4+ years yielded

86.7% (39 respondents). Two of the respondents skipped this question. The 45 respondents indicated that at

least 60 minutes is dedicated towards the integration of technology into their lesson plans in a given week.

Forty-two teachers were very enthusiastic in using technology inside their classrooms while 5 indicated

some enthusiasm. Concretely, these teachers do embrace and support technology in their classrooms.

Table 12. How Has Technology Changed the Teaching Process in Your Classroom? (N=54)

Not at all Somewhat Totally changed it Rating Response

Average Count
Technology 2.3% 9.1% 6.6% 31.8% 27.7% 18.2% 9.14%
changed 4.55 54
teaching (1) (4) (3) (14) (10) (18) (4)
process.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Among these 54 teachers, 32 indicated that technology totally changed their teaching process in

the classroom while 14 responded that technology somewhat changed the teaching process and 8 claimed

that technology did not change the teaching process.

Table 13. How Has Technology Changed the Learning Process in Your Classroom? (N=43)

Not at all Somewhat Totally changed it Rating Response

average count
Technology 4.7% 9.3% 9.3% 32.6% 25.6% 11.6% 7.0%
changed 4.28 43
learning (2) (4) (4) (14) (11) (5) (3)
process.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Nineteen teachers (44.2%) acknowledged that technology totally changed the learning process

inside the classroom, 14 teachers (32.6%) indicated that technology somewhat changed the learning

process, and 10 teachers (27.3%) responded that technology had not changed the learning process. Results

on the Teacher Survey under section B on Classroom Environment, question 5 (How much time, on
 59

average, do students use computer in the classroom?) yielded the following: 23.3% (10 respondents)

indicated zero minutes per day, 72.1% (31 respondents) indicated 1 to 30 minutes per day, and 4.7% (2

respondents) indicated 31 to 60 minutes per day. There was zero response for over 60 minutes per day.

Their response indicates that more than half of the teachers allow students to use computers daily; however,

increased computer time may enhance the learning time in their classroom. This result clearly implies that

technology predominantly changed the learning process as indicated by 19 (11+5+3 from totally changed it

column on Table 13) teachers.

The responses of teachers under the General Comments section at the end of the Teacher Survey

to question 1 (What is the motivation for using technology?) were the following:

1. To enhance student learning as well as my own.

2. To keep organized and neat.

3. To make learning more real and exciting.

4. To improve children’s keyboarding skills and reading fluency.

5. To get kids ready for workforce; to stay up with current practices.

6. To improve critical thinking skills and ease of organization.

7. To help kids to meet current needs and have better understanding of technology tools; getting

students excited about learning in a new way.

8. To enhance instruction and enrich curriculum; quality of work; ease of preparation.

9. To deliver more in-depth, real-world learning for research and homework reinforcement.

The response to question 2 (What have been the benefits of technology for this class?) yielded the

following answers:

1. Students use it to take Accelerated Reading (AR) test.

2. Read books on CDs, do math problems, etc.

3. Improved keyboarding skills.

4. Students are able to read and then independently take quiz on the computer.

5. It livens up lessons, made lesson planning easier, and communication improved.

6. LEXIA (reading software) program is available to support at-risk learners.

 60

7. The use of the mobile laptop lab helped student’s abilities around a computer and opened

them to the resources available on the web.

8. Technology provided alternative instruction to meet different learning styles and alternate

resources and more user-friendly search capabilities.

9. Students have been able to practice both reading and word study.

10. Skills that have been taught in class in an entertaining way do play a role in learning.

11. One teacher had been able to create and/or adapt lessons and/or assessments, worksheets to fit

her students’ needs.

12. Technology provided visual enhancement of instructions, organization of curriculum, access

to online curriculum tools, increased student engagement.

13. It has been a time saver, more efficient, and increased motivation/creative outlet.

14. Technology led the way to the explorations of multiple intelligences and reaching different

learning modalities.

15. Using technology the class has been able to do design and run experiments, do simulations,

analyze the outcome of games, and solve complex statistical problems of inference.

16. Students are able to use software to learn social skills, to categorize screen pictures, practice

math and language arts skills.

Teacher responses to question 3 (What are the difficulties/ barriers/shortcomings of using

technology?) include the following:

1. It is hard to use and integrate technology if you are not very good at it or it is something new

for you.

2. Technology can be very time consuming trying to learn and figure out unknowns on my own

and not have enough training.

3. Another barrier is the lack of working computers, lack of software; best planned lessons fail

due to equipment failure or incompatible operating systems and software.

4. It is hard to keep up with the advances and recent technology. Limited computers in the

classroom, lack of training on software and how to instruct; lack of time to learn about how to

effectively integrate technology into the curriculum.

 61

5. It is difficult to have enough time for students to work on computers with adult help.

6. Teachers need more training and time to implement the use of technology.

7. My experience and training are not adequate enough to use technology effectively in my

lessons on a daily basis.

8. Finding the time to prepare materials for specific student needs is a constant challenge.

9. Time is not available in the daily schedule to accommodate the design and execution time

needed to create classroom materials.

10. I had a hard time bringing technology into the classroom.

The respondents to question 4 (If you could acquire more technology, what would it be?) gave the

following answers:

1. I would like to see more computers, document camera, and a projector for my class.

2. Overhead camera, more computers, projection screens, writing boards, digital camera, and

student software are needed to reinforce curriculum standards.

3. There is also a need for more software for Kindergarten. One teacher wants to relearn Excel,

brush up on PowerPoint, spreadsheets, html, what is a ram and a rom, what computer speed is

and where to find that information and how to download programs, etc.

4. Another teacher wants to obtain Geometers Sketchpad, a geometry program that looks into

ideas and concepts.

The responses to question 5 (If you acquired more technology, how would you use it?) were the

following:

1. Incorporate into lessons, use for review, reinforcement of standards, and to pursue writing and

research projects.

2. I would hope to improve classroom instruction based on technological capabilities.

3. Enhance lessons by creating great visuals; projector to display movie clips and PowerPoint.

4. I would set up computer stations and have students using computers for specific activities

such as simulated science labs, teaching lessons, and other productive activities. Phase 1:

Change the assignments to be PC based rather than graphing calculator based. In parallel,

increase the number of PC computers available to students in the PC Lab. Phase 2: Hire a
 62

permanent technician to maintain the network and the PC computers. Assign a small team of

bright students to work with technician to support all users. Phase 3: Obtain sufficient licenses

of SAS, Fathom, and Minitab to operate in the PC computers. Phase 4: Start working on

collaborative learning via the intranet.

5. I would try to use it at least once a week in my classroom, breaking up the routine and getting

the students more into it.

Additional comments from the teachers included the following:

1. Technology is great for everyone. It truly helps to differentiate at all levels.

2. Our school has a computer lab but each class is only assigned to it for 30 minutes a week. We

work on things like PowerPoint, typing skills, and students usually get a little free time to use

the Internet or play games.

3. In my philosophy of teaching, technology is not used to replace the teacher but to amplify

and compliment what the teacher does as a mentor and as a guide.

4. My lesson plans will always contain a large portion of time where the teacher is acting and

guiding practice with and for the students.

Table 14 represents the data obtained from the Online Survey to question 5 (To what extent do

you assign students in your typical class work that involves using computers or the Internet in the following

ways?). From these results, research using the Internet yielded the highest percentage with 26.8% and a

rating average of 2.94 followed by the use of software applications at 22.5% with a rating average of 2.78,

moving towards the maximum rating of 5.

Table 14. Work Involved Using Computers or the Internet (N=138)

Not at Small Moderate Large Not Rating Response

all extent extent extent applicable average count
a. Practice drills
38.4% 16.7% 21.0% 11.6% 12.3%
2.43 138
(53) (23) (29) (16) (17)
b. Solve
27.7% 24.1% 21.9% 11.7% 14.6%
problems/analyze
2.61 137
data
(38) (33) (30) (16) (20)
 63

Table 14. Work Involved Using Computers or the Internet (N=138) (continued)

Not at Small Moderate Large Not Rating Response

all extent extent extent applicable average count
c. Use computer
applications such
24.6% 20.3% 20.3% 22.5% 12.3%
as word
2.78 138
processing,
(34) (28) (28) (31) (17)
spreadsheets, etc.

d. Graphical
30.7% 22.6% 22.6% 10.9% 13.1%
representation of
2.53 137
materials
(42) (31) (31) (15) (18)
e. Demonstrations
30.4% 22.5% 16.7% 15.9% 14.5%
and simulations
2.62 138
(42) (31) (23) (22) (20)
f. Produce
multimedia 32.8% 19.7% 21.9% 12.4% 13.1%
reports and 2.53 137
projects (45) (27) (30) (17) (18)

g. Research using
46.3% 19.9% 12.5% 5.9% 15.4%
CD-ROM
2.24 136
(63) (27) (17) (8) (21)
h. Research using
20.3% 15.2% 26.1% 26.8%% 11.6%
the Internet
2.94 138
(28) (21) (36) (37) (16)
i. Correspond with
experts, authors,
51.4% 19.6% 10.1% 4.3% 14.5%
students from
2.11 138
other schools, etc.,
(71) (27) (14) (6) (20)
via e-mail or
Internet
______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 15 represents the data obtained from question 6 (On average, how frequently do students in

your typical class use each of the following during class time?). For students who use computers in the

classroom, lab or library, Internet during class time is roughly less than one third of the total average count

of 136 and about 6.6% were involved in the distance learning via the Internet, via other modes of

interactive media and use of graphing calculators. An equal spread of students using technology exists as

indicated by the rating average of 2.40 to 2.58; however, the technology listed in the last three rows is not

used during class time as reflected in the low rating average ranges of 1.51 to 1.55.
 64

Table 15. Frequency of Student Use of Technology During Class Time (N=137)

Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Rating Response

average count
a. Computers 27.9% 15.4% 27.2% 29.4%
in the 2.58 136
classroom. (38) (21) (37) (40)

b. Computers 23.4% 19.7% 31.4% 25.5%

in a computer 2.59 137
lab or library (32) (27) (43) (35)
media center.
c. Internet 37.2% 11.7% 32.8% 18.2%
from the 2.32 137
classroom (51) (16) (45) (25)

d. Internet
30.7% 17.5% 32.8% 19.0%
from a
2.40 137
computer lab
(42) (24) (45) (26)
or library
media center.
e. Distance 71.3% 13.2% 8.8% 6.6%
learning via 1.51 136
the Internet. (97) (18) (12) (9)

f. Distance
68.9% 12.6% 13.3% 5.2%
learning via
1.55 135
other modes
(93) (17) (18) (7)
of interactive
media.
g. Graphing 71.3% 13.2% 8.8% 6.6%
calculators. 1.51 136
(97) (18) (12) (9)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 16 represents the data obtained from question 7 (Are the following available to you, and if

yes, to what extent do you use them?). The table shows that approximately 25% use computers in the

classroom to a large extent and over 37% use computers at home and 39% have the Internet at home. What

is impressive is the availability of technology in most categories that ranged close to 50%.
 65

Table 16. Technology Availability and Extent of Its Use (N=161)

Yes No Not at all Small Moderate Large Response

extent extent extent count
a. Computers 44.1% 7.5% 2.5% 8.7% 12.4% 24.8%
in your 97
classroom. (7) (12) (4) (14) (20) (40)

b. Computers 46.9% 2.5% 8.8% 16.3% 15.0% 10.6%

elsewhere in 160
the school (75) (4) (14) (26) (24) (17)

c. Computers 48.5% 0.6% 1.8% 5.5% 6.1% 37.4%

at home. 163
(79) (1) (3) (9) (10) (61)

d. Internet in 44.6% 5.1% 3.8% 14.0% 14.0 % 18.5%

your 157
classroom. (70) (8) (6) (22) (22) (29)

e. Internet 46.2% 4.4% 10.8% 17.1% 8.2% 13.3%

elsewhere in 158
the school. (73) (7) (17) (27) (13) (21)

f. Internet at 49.1% 1.8% 1.2% 4.3% 4.3% 39.3%

home 163
(80) (3) (2) (7) (7) (64)

g. E-mail at 44.7% 6.9% 1.3% 10.1% 8.8% 28.3%

school. 159
(71) (11) (2) (16) (14) (45)

h. School
network
39.0% 15.6% 7.8% 10.6% 9.9% 17.0%
through
141
which you
(55) (22) (11) (15) (14) (24)
can access the
Internet from
home.
i. Telephone 46.3% 5.6% 3.1% 16.9% 10.6% 17.5%
in your 160
classroom. (74) (9) (5) (27) (17) (28)

______________________________________________________________________________________

In Table 17 the data obtained from question 9 (In your opinion, how well prepared are you to use

computers and the Internet for classroom instruction?) clearly indicates that the majority of the teachers

who took online courses are well prepared in the use of computers and the Internet.
 66

Table 17. Preparedness to Use Computers and the Internet in the Classroom (N=99)

Not at all Somewhat Well Very well Rating Response

prepared prepared prepared prepared average count
Computers 3.0% 26.3% 37.4% 33.3%
Internet 3.01 99
(3) (26) (37) (33)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 18 represents the data obtained from question 10 (To what extent have each of the following

prepared you to use computers and the Internet?) Most teachers have shown that they, to a large extent,

were well prepared to use computers for performing most of the activities posed in this question. Based on

the results, teachers were primarily prepared to use computers and the Internet through independent

learning, followed by college graduate work, and then professional development activities.

Table 18. Personal Preparation for Using Computers and the Internet (N=102)

Not at all Small extent Moderate Large extent Rating Response

extent average count
a. College 3.9% 13.7% 34.3% 48.0%
graduate work. 3.26 102
(4) (14) (35) (49)

b. Professional 9.9% 22.8% 31.7% 35.6%

development 2.93 101
activities (10) (23) (32) (36)

c. Colleagues. 11.9% 31.7% 29.7% 26.7%

2.71 102
(12) (32) (30) (28)

d. Students. 31.7% 26.7% 27.7% 13.9%

2.24 101
(32) (27) (28) (14)

e. Independent 0.0% 9.8% 34.3% 65.9%

learning. 3.46 102
(0) (10) (35) (57)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 19 represents the data obtained from question 11 (How many hours of formal professional

development in the use of computers and the Internet did you participate in during the last 3 years?). The
 67

results reveal a high percentage of teachers engaging in formal professional development. They have spent

over 32 hours in computer training and they do need additional release time to enable them to enhance their

technology skills in all aspects of teaching.

Table 19. Professional Development in Use of Computers and the Internet (N=34)

1 2 3 4 Rating Response
average count
0 hours 94.1% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9%
1.18 17
(16) (0) (0) (1)

1-8 hours 8.8% 76.5% 8.8% 5.9%

2.12 34
(3) (26) (3) (2)

9-32 hours 0.0% 3.7% 77.8% 18.5%

3.15 27
(0) (1) (21) (5)

More than 3.4% 0.0% 3.4% 93.1%

3.86 29
32 hours (1) (0) (1) (27)
______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 20 represents the data obtained from question 12 (Answer yes or no on whether your school

or district does the following). Over 50% of the school administrators do require technology training for

their teachers and only 39% encourage technology training with incentives.

Table 20. Technology Training Provided by School or District (N=98)

Yes No Rating average Response count

a. Require 57.7% 42.3%

technology 1.42 97
training for (56) (41)
teachers?

b. Encourage
technology 39.2% 60.8% 1.61 97
training with
incentives? (38) (59)
 68

Table 20. Technology Training Provided by School or District (N=98) (continued)

Yes No Rating Average Response count

c. Leave it up to 74.5% 25.5%

teachers to initiate 1.26 98
participation. (73) (25)

Table 20 also indicates that among the participants who responded to question 12c, 74.5%

indicated that the administrators are allowing their teachers to initiate their own participation in technology

training. If teachers are not mandated to attend technology training, they will not participate.

Table 21 represents the data obtained from question 13 (Does your state, district, or school make

the following types of training available to you and, if yes, have you ever participated in these programs?).

The results show that 35.1% indicated that use of computers/basic computer training was available, but

only 17.6% participated. Similarly, 35.3% responded that integration of technology into the

curriculum/classroom instruction training was available, but only 13.7% participated. Even the

participation in the use of the Internet training and the follow-up and/or advanced training is staggering low

at 11.0% and 8.8% respectively. Finally, at least one-quarter of all respondents in each area don’t know

about the availability of technology training.

Table 21. Availability of and Participation in Technology Training (N=148)

Available Participated Don’t Yes No Response

know count
a. Use of 35.1% 17.6% 22.3% 14.2% 10.8%
computers/basic 148
computer training. (52) (26) (33) (21) (16)

b. Software 31.8% 18.9% 22.3% 17.6% 9.5%

applications. 148
(47) (28) (33) (26) (14)

c. Use of the Internet. 30.7% 11.0% 29.1% 13.4% 15.7%

127
(39) (14) (37) (17) (20)
 69

Table 21. Availability of and Participation in Technology Training (N=148) (continued)

Available Participated Don’t Yes No Response

know count
d. Use of advanced 23.9% 9.4%
telecommunications. 37.6% (44) 11.1% (13) 17.9% (21) 117
(28) (11)

e. Integration of 35.3% 13.7%

technology into the 20.1% (28) 14.4% (20) 16.5% (23) 139
curriculum/classroom (49) (19)
instruction.
f. Follow-up and/or 26.4% 8.8% 8.8%
advanced training. 37.6% (47) 18.4% (23) 125
(33) (11) (11)

Table 22 represents the data obtained from question 16 (Please indicate who at your school

provides computer-related assistance to you for each of the following?). The data results reveal that the

technology coordinator provides most of the computer-related assistance to teachers as reflected in the

rating average of 2.79.

Table 22. Provider of Computer-Related Help (N=78)

Use of Use of Technical Integrating Locating Rating Response

computers the support technology software average count
Internet
a. Technology 39.7% 5.1% 17.9% 10.3% 26.9%
coordinator 2.79 78
(31) (4) (14) (8) (21)

b. Library 51.4% 21.4% 12.9% 5.7% 8.6%

media 1.99 70
specialist (36) (15) (9) (4) (6)

c. Classroom 41.8% 13.4% 20.9% 4.5% 19.4%

teacher 2.46 67
(28) (9) (14) (3) (13)

d. No 61.0% 12.2% 12.2% 2.4% 12.2%

assistance 1.93 41
provided (25) (5) (5) (1) (5)

e. Other 69.2% 7.7% 7.7% 0.0% 15.4%

(specify on 1.85 13
the next (9) (1) (1) (0) (2)
number).
______________________________________________________________________________________
 70

Table 23 represents the data obtained from question 17 (Please indicate to what extent, if any, each

of the following are barriers to your use of school computers or the Internet for instruction.). The lack of

computers, release time for teachers to learn or practice technology, and outdated or incompatible

computers are the three major barriers that limit teachers in using school computers. Next is the lack of

good instructional software that can facilitate student’s learning immensely. Finally, related to the lack of

computers barrier is the lack of funding resources, an essential factor in the integration of technology into

the daily practice of our teachers.

Table 23. Barriers to Use of School Computers or the Internet for Instruction (N=95)

Not a Small Moderate Great Rating Response

barrier barrier barrier barrier average count
a. Not enough 23.2% 17.9% 17.9% 41.1%
computers. 2.77 95
(22) (17) (17) (39)

b. Outdated, 31.1% 27.8% 18.9% 22.2%

incompatible. 2.32 90
(28) (25) (17) (20)

c. Internet access is not 56.3% 20.8% 14.6% 8.3%

easily accessible. 1.75 96
(54) (20) (14) (8)

d. Lack of good 31.9% 24.5% 26.6% 17.0%

instructional software. 2.29 94
(30) (23) (25) (16)

e. Inadequate training 22.5% 34.8% 24.7% 18.0%

opportunities. 2.38 89
(20) (31) (22) (16)

f. Lack of release time 20.9% 31.9% 23.1% 24.2%

for teachers to learn,
2.51 91
practice, plan ways to (19) (29) (21) (22)
use computers or the
Internet.
g. Lack of 35.1% 35.% 18.1% 11.7%
administrative support. 2.06 94
(33) (33) (17) (11)

h. Lack of support 23.9% 37.5% 28.4% 10.2%

regarding ways to
2.25 88
integrate (21) (33) (25) (9)
telecommunications
into the curriculum.
 71

Table 23. Barriers to Use of School Computers or the Internet for Instruction (N=95) (continued)

Not a Small Moderate Great Rating Response

barrier barrier barrier barrier average count
i. Lack of technical 30.1% 35.5% 23.7% 10.8%
support or advice. 2.15 93
(28) (33) (22) (10)

28.1% 27.0% 21.3% 23.6%

j. Lack of time in 2.40 89
schedule for students to (25) (24) (19) (21)
use computers in class.
k. Concern about 34.1% 36.5% 9.4% 20.0%
student access to 2.15 85
inappropriate materials. (29) (31) (8) (17)

l. Lack of funding. 28.0% 19.4% 19.4% 33.3%

2.58 93
(26) (18) (18) (31)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Research Question Two

Are the currently available training programs designed to assist K-12 teachers in using classroom

technology promoting these best practices in the Chula Vista School District in California?

The 24-question Professional Development of Teacher Survey (see Appendix A) and the 29-

question Principal Survey (see Appendix B) provided the responses to this research question. A total of 90

teachers participated in the Professional Development survey and 5 principals in the Principal Survey.

Question 1 (Do you think that your school district provides adequate technical training and

support for teachers?) from the Professional Development of Teachers Survey indicated 47.8% responded

with a no and 52.2% answered with a yes. These two responses do signify that there is a significant gap in

technology support and professional development training for the elementary schools.

Table 24 represents the data obtained from question 2 of the Professional Development Survey.

The overall results from this survey fell under mid-range between the positive and negative response of the

participants. In the first column, the first four statements on Table 24, approximately 60% or more of

respondents indicated they have been taught how to use or observed software application. Yet the next

three statements show that teachers need more time to practice using the applications and effectively

integrating them into their lesson plans. More than 95% of the participants did indicate that they would like
 72

to increase their skills with computers and software. Interestingly, close to 93% expressed their desire for

more training in technology.

Table 24. Professional Development Opportunities (N=75)

Yes No Response count

I have been taught

62.2% 37.8%
software applications
relevant to my 74
(46) (28)
curriculum level.

I have participated in 68.9% 31.1%

hands-on opportunities
74
to use software (51) (23)
applications.

I have observed another 59.5% 40.5%

educator model how to
74
use a specific software (44) (30)
application.
I have been provided
technology lesson ideas
62.2% 37.8%
relevant to my 74
curriculum level.
(46) (28)

I have been given

48.0% 52.0%
enough time to practice
using applications. 75
(36) (39)
Technology was an
55.4% 44.6%
important part of my
pre-service education 74
(41) (33)
program.
I have received enough
56.0% 44.0%
instruction on how to
use new software 75
(42) (33)
applications.
I have attended
60.0% 40.0%
technology workshops,
seminars, and classes. 75
(45) (30)
I would like to increase
95.8% 4.2%
my skills with
computers and software. 72
(69) (3)
I participate in
12.2% 87.8%
technology learning
sessions at least once a 74
(9) (65)
month.
 73

Table 24. Professional Development Opportunities (N=75) (continued)

Response count
Yes No
I have observed another
62.1% 37.9%
teacher at my school
integrating technology 66
(41) (25)
in the classroom.
I would like more
93.2% 6.8%
training in technology.
73
(68) (5)
I would like more
opportunities to observe
93.2% 6.8%
other teachers using 74
technology.
(69) (5)

I believe increasing my
training in technology
93.2% 6.8%
will lead to an increased 59
use of technology in my
(55) (4)
classroom.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 25 represents the results from question 3 of the Professional Development Survey. A

significant result of this survey was that more than 75% (55 of 73 participants) disagreed that the best way

for teachers to learn about technology integration is to read books and other print materials on their own

time. Ninety-five percent agreed teachers need release time to collaborate with technology support staff to

design effective lessons that integrate technology.

Table 25. Teachers’ Use of Technology (N=73)

Strongly Strongly Rating Response

Agree Disagree
agree disagree average count
I feel that the
school district
provides many in-
service 21.4% 35.7% 21.4% 21.4%
opportunities to 2.43 28
train teachers to (6) (10) (6) (6)
design lessons
that integrate
technology.
 74

Table 25. Teachers’ Use of Technology (N=73) (continued)

Strongly Strongly Rating Response

Agree Disagree
agree disagree average count

My pre-service
teacher training
program included 22.5% 53.5% 18.3% 5.6%
teaching with 2.07 71
technology (16) (38) (13) (4)
methodologies
that were
beneficial to me.

I think that our

administration
provides us with 13.0% 18.8% 42.0% 26.1%
adequate funding 2.81 69
to purchase (9) (13) (29) (18)
software that we
can integrate into
our curriculum.

I believe teachers
need release time
to collaborate with
47.9% 47.9% 4.1% 0.0%
technology
1.56 73
support staff to
(35) (35) (3) (0)
design effective
lessons that
integrate
technology.
I prefer project-
based learning
42.5% 46.6% 11.0% 0.0%
opportunities over
1.68 73
more traditional
(31) (34) (8) (0)
teacher-directed
delivery methods.

The best way for

teachers to learn
about technology 6.8% 17.8% 47.9% 27.4%
integration is to 2.96 73
read books and (5) (13) (35) (20)
other print
materials on their
own time.

Whenever I have
a question about
22.9% 47.1% 22.9% 7.1%
using technology
2.14 70
in the classroom I
(16) (33) (16) (5)
call a trusted
teacher who is an
experienced user.
 75

Table 25. Teachers’ Use of Technology (N=73) (continued)

Strongly Strongly Rating Response

Agree Disagree
agree disagree average count

Teachers should
feel comfortable
22.5% 52.1% 23.9% 1.4%
letting their
2.04 71
students teach
(16) (37) (17) (1)
them about
anything related
to technology.

The Internet—and
the web, in
31.5% 42.5% 24.7% 1.4%
particular—is
1.96 73
now the best
(23) (31) (18) (1)
medium for me to
learn about almost
anything.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Tables 26 through 31 represent the data obtained from the Principal Survey under section D,

School Principal Information, questions 1, 5, 6, and 8. The administrators indicated that technology is

extremely important in the areas of administration, instruction, and in community building. The data

strongly indicated that technology has changed the teaching process, the learning process, and the

administrative process.

Table 26. How Important is Technology—Administratively? (N=5)

Not important Somewhat Extremely important Rating Response

important average count
Administratively 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 80.0%
6.6 5
(0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (4)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 27. How Important is Technology—For Instruction? (N=5)

Not important Somewhat Extremely important Rating Response

important average count
0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4.2 5
For instruction (0) (0) (1) (2) (2) (0) (0)
 76

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 28. How Important is Technology—For Community Building? (N=5)

Not important Somewhat Extremely important Rating Response

important average count
For community 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 40.0%
5.2 5
building (0) (0) (1) (1) (1) (0) (2)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 29. How Has Technology Changed the Teaching Process? (N=5)

Not at all Somewhat Totally changed it Rating Response

average count
Teaching 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0%
process 4.6 5
(0) (0) (0) (2) (3) (0) (0)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 30. How Has Technology Changed the Learning Process? (N=5)

Not at all Somewhat Totally changed it Rating Response

average count
Learning process 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4.6 5
(0) (0) (0) (2) (3) (0) (0)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 31. How Has Technology Changed the Management/Administrative Process? (N=4)

Not at all Somewhat Totally changed it Rating Response

average count
Management 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0%
administrative 6.75 4
process (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (3)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Responses to question 9 on what is the motivation for using technology included the following:

tracking/organizing data; facilitate communication, learning; supports organization’s overall

goals/objectives; time saver; presentation, ease of use; need to address global market, excessive need to
 77

keep up with changing technology. The principals gave the following feedback on question 10 on what

have been the benefits of technology for this school: has improved communication; helped the teachers

give more targeted instructions; made them more efficient; engaged and motivated students.

As far as the difficulties/barriers/shortcomings of using technology, question 11, the schools need

more funding to stay current with technology; further teacher training opportunities; professional

development on how to change teaching practices; and enough technicians to repair broken equipment. The

principals noted in question 12 that if they could acquire more technology they would love to have new

computers, LCD projectors, Smart Boards, digital cameras, rolling labs, intervention software, document

cameras, and more technician time during the week. The principals’ comments/responses to questions 9 to

12 strongly indicated acquisition of computers and associated equipment to enable the teachers to integrate

technology into their teaching is a key priority to improving teaching and learning.

Research Question Three

What recommendations can be made to strengthen the preparation currently provided to K-12

teachers to enable them to more effectively integrate technology into their classrooms in the Chula

Vista School District in California?

The twelve interview questions (see Appendix D) were asked in a semi-structured interview of

five elementary school teachers from five different schools within the Chula Vista Elementary School

District.

The first interview question asked teachers to describe their experiences in acquiring technology

skills and knowledge from the web-based training and mentoring. The researcher discovered that these

teachers obtained their technology skills and knowledge from their academic program prior to becoming

certified teachers with their own classroom. Only one of the participants had taken an online technology

course during her program and claimed that she learned very little and found troubleshooting a problem on

her own to be significantly challenging. In addition, teachers had different experiences in how they used

technology.

One of the interviewees used the Internet to improve her lesson plans and incorporated video

streaming in her classes on a daily basis. Another interviewee used videoconferencing with a teacher in a
 78

different school district by linking their computer classrooms via the Internet, bridging the distance gap

between the two schools. The third interviewee had taken two technology courses while doing her Master’s

Degree program at San Diego State University. Her students can do Advanced Reading tests in their

computer lab. Another interviewee acquired some technology skills from her credentialing program and

some professional training in-house whenever the school had a professional development day. She also

implemented united video streaming into her classroom lessons on a daily basis. The fourth interviewee

mentioned that she used the trial and error method when she implemented technology into her teaching by

modeling how to implement the use of PowerPoint presentation, presenting video clips that can stimulate

students’ imagination, engaging them to participate in the learning process, and trying to find what worked

best for her students. The fifth interviewee obtained her skills from her college years such as constructing

PowerPoint presentations and massive letter writing.

The interviewees responding to questions 2 and 3 stated that the frustrations and limitations they

experience is the inability to access some sites because of filtering by the school district’s technology

department, technology breakdowns with no available technical support on board and it takes a long time to

get the technical problems solved, and only one computer for the whole class to share. To overcome their

frustrations or limitations when they are trying to use technology they download the information from their

home computer and bring it to the classroom.

In answering question 4, one person said using the united streaming video is one technology

strategy that appears to be successful in their teaching practice. Collaborating with other teachers by

sharing their experiences and discussing what works best in their teaching is an excellent method of

practice to enhance teaching and learning.

Responding to question 5, the interviewees said infusing technology into their teaching will take

approximately two to three years the way they envision it and through continuous training. The last

interviewee was unsure of the length of time when she will be able to infuse technology into her teaching.

Reasons cited included lack of release time which is only two days in a school year and their inability to

attend professional development courses in technology that are available at most colleges, universities, and

private tutoring programs. In addition, the researcher’s discovery that no programs in classroom technology
 79

currently exist to promote best practices in integrating technology can be considered another reason why it

would take so much time before integration could occur.

For the next question 6, professional staff development workshops are one of the supports

mentioned by the interviewees that would help them continue their progress in using technology in their

classrooms. Another type of support is other teachers showing or teaching their colleagues how to use

technology at their specific grade level and more hands-on training and practice. In response to question 7,

one piece of advice to give to a teacher who has a desire to begin the process of including technology in

their instruction is to just try it. The little effort that teachers put forth initially in using technology will pay

off eventually.

For the interviewees responding to question 8, the most important factors that will determine

whether they continue to plan for and use technology in their classroom lessons included the following:

accessibility; using technology on a daily basis; embracing technology; taking stock of what is available;

and recognize that the process is slow, such as learning a specific technology. They went on to say start

small when trying to learn technology in a curriculum area that they are familiar with and build knowledge

around it. One opportunity is to do computer training for the class due to resources limitations. Also, a lot

of software is available but teachers lack the time for learning the software programs adequately to enhance

their teaching.

Responding to question 9, the interviewees revealed that their worst fears about the process of

incorporating technology into their teaching were these: using technology ineffectively and wasting the

time in the process; people don’t want to embrace it; something is mandated without any form of training;

it takes a lot of time to get started and with the amount of time required, is it the right way? Is it good? Is it

helping? and the list goes on and on; am I wasting time with teaching them?

The interviewees expressed in their response to question 10 their best hopes for the process of

incorporating technology into their teaching is by preparing students to become good learners; never fear

technology; become more comfortable the more I use technology; make the technology a part of my daily

activities such as planning and assessment of the students. One of the participants never had any online

learning class; however, she had 15-20 hours of technology training at her school campus and was very

satisfied with her school’s resources, except for the lack of a document camera that can be used in
 80

teachable moments to provide effective learning. The availability of material such as video clips as well as

overhead projectors are other methods in getting the students excited and engaged in learning and capturing

students’ attention.

In response to questions 11 and 12 on their opinion of the online learning they have dealt with as

well as the content of the training, one of the interviewees who had done her credential program and the

master’s program at San Diego State University said “Online learning was not really great because they did

not show us how to use technology in the class.” The second participant is truly dedicated in her

approaches towards teaching by asking herself what is the best thing she can do for her students so they can

learn the concepts better. The content of online training for the preservice teachers should be designed at

the appropriate grade level for teachers in much smaller numbers and narrow in scope for more manageable

training. The third participant had positive experience from online learning and it was convenient for her at

the time. She was not fully satisfied with the content of the learning but she was able to learn something for

her program. She indicated on her response that it was difficult to troubleshoot when something went

wrong with the computer and help was not readily available at that moment. The other two remaining

interviewees never attended online or distance education classes. The overall results of the interview

confirmed the qualitative data results that there are no programs for classroom technology to implement

best practices inside the classrooms. Teachers are willing to take an active role in technology training for

skills development but time is their biggest constraint from accomplishing such a goal. They also

mentioned the lack of funding to buy the computers and related hardwares they need for their classroom.

Teachers should also put forth the effort in learning technology, use it as much as possible on a daily basis,

and continuously assess the presence of technology to ensure that it is being utilized effectively. In doing

so, teachers will develop the habit of embracing technology and will become more comfortable as

technology continues to evolve.

To illustrate the results of this interview in a table format, the researcher developed the following

summary of data that lists the participants’ responses to the questions.


Table 32. Summary of Semi-Structured Interview of Five Teachers
Question
1. Could you describe your experience in acquiring
technology knowledge and skills from web-based
training and mentoring?
2. What types of frustrations and limitations do you
experience in trying to use technology in your
teaching?
3. How do you try to overcoming these frustrations
and limitations?
4. Which types of teaching strategies appear to be
most successful when you are using technology?
5. How long do you think it will take you to infuse
technology into your teaching in the way you
envision it?
6. What types of support would help you continue
your progress in using technology in your
classroom?
7. What advice would you give to a teacher Who
has a desire to begin the process of including
technology in their instruction?
8. Identify the most important factor or factors that
will determine whether you continue to plan for and
use technology in your classroom lessons?
9. What are your worst fears about the process of
incorporating technology into your teaching?
10. What are your best hopes for this process of
incorporating technology into your teaching?
81
Responses
Use of Internet; united video streaming; technology
courses; from credential program; teacher academy;
practical experience.
Firewall; breakdown of computers; limited technical
support; not enough computers; no document
camera; not enough time to learn software
programs; figuring something out.
Download from home; report the breakdown to the
district; install new computers; increase proficient
use of technology through training; use free time to
do it with students; referring to books.
PowerPoint slides; document camera; overhead
projector; linking television via the Internet;
pictures on the Internet; group lecture by showing
videos; trial and error; modeling; alpha smart
keyboard; DVD player; laptop for students; visual
aids.
Two to three years; ability to obtain training;
implementation of Web Quest; absence of
hardware; workshop and then apply the skills
learned in class; no definite time.
Professional development training; mentoring;
taking computer classes; grade level training;
practice the skills through hands-on, small scale
workshops.
Put forth the effort in learning technology; use
technology as much as possible; assess the presence
of technology; start small scale training; embrace
technology.
Accessibility; money for funding technology;
newsletter; availability of resources; time.
Ineffective use; everything will be technology;
mandated use of technology without training; it
takes time to get started; time out to learn the basics.
Preparing students to be competitive; training will
make teaching a lot easier; people benefits from
technology; part of daily plan for assessment;
second nature for the students; get students excited
and engaged.
 82

Table 32. Summary of Semi-Structured Interview of Five Teachers (continued)

Question Responses

11. What do you think of the online learning you Did not feel that online is effective; never shown
have dealt with? how to use technology; easy and positively
appropriate; hard to troubleshoot inoperative
computers and related equipment; convenient.

12. Are you completely satisfied with the content of Not satisfied with the content; was able to learn
training? techniques; need exposure to experiments.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The summary in Table 32 calls for professional training development, mentoring, computer

classes, grade level training, hands-on practice of skills, and small scale workshops that will supplement or

elevate their present technology skills. Based upon the interviews, the generalizability of the data that

emerged from the participants and the findings can lean towards other teachers who are experiencing

similar scenarios in their respective field.

Summation

The teachers who participated in this study obtained their technology skills training from the

undergraduate degree and teaching credential programs where educational technology was a required

course mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 These teachers do love to incorporate

technology into their teaching practice; however, they are experiencing minimal hardware support from the

school district. The five elementary school principals did provide a copy of their Technology Plan with a

definite timetable on the implementation of technology integration into their school operations to support

administrative functions and enhance the teaching process. The researcher did observe the classrooms of

the schools where interviews were held and noticed a limited presence of technology hardware necessary

for their teaching. Although the classrooms are wired to access the Internet, they were outfitted with only

one or two computers and only available for the teacher’s use. The students can access the Internet for

research for at least half an hour every week in the computer lab under the direct supervision of the

teachers. The time allotted for professional development training is also not sufficient; teachers only have

two days of technology training every school year. In addition, teachers are not afforded the opportunity to

integrate into the classrooms practice the skills nor expand their awareness of the new developments

emerging from technology to.

 83

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This research was an attempt to provide a quantitative and qualitative examination of data for

educators involved in the K-12 education curricula on the effective integration of technology into their

teaching practices inside the classroom. This study was designed to focus on present teachers and

preservice teachers and administrators in the K-12 drawn from five elementary schools in the Chula Vista

Elementary School District and from the 156 online students who took courses from National University.

The results of the study may possibly generalize to the other elementary schools of Chula Vista and other

elementary schools across California. The gender of the participants was not a factor in the study and did

not present any significance since the research focused on integration of technology.

Limitations of the Study

One limitation of the study that may have affected the overall results is the limitations of the

instruments themselves. Despite the careful procedure used by the researcher in gathering the data, some

instruments may have needed careful review in their contents. This researcher also made his earnest

attempt in sending the Principal Survey Instrument (Appendix B) via mail to all elementary school

principals within the Chula Vista Elementary School District. However, the majority of principals did not

respond but five did and provided their feedback and their technology plans for their schools. The

researcher was unable to obtain as much data as possible to explore the present technology status of the

elementary schools within the district. Perhaps the principals were truly occupied on attending to their daily

responsibilities in running the schools and were not able to consider this study as part of their important

undertakings that are always challenging such as keeping their schools safe, ensuring that they have enough

teachers to keep the students busy learning, keeping the school grounds free from any intruders, and so

forth. As a result of the principals’ non-participation on this study, this researcher was more motivated from

his desire to help the other schools identify if they do have any technology plans in place. The researcher

did not receive any courtesy note from the principals acknowledging his request. In this research, the

researcher was able to conduct a complete physical tour at the schools of the five elementary classrooms

where the five interviews were conducted with five teachers. Based upon the data gathered from the
 84

interviews no matter how small, it is now clear that the schools for the most part are still lacking the

physical resources they need to engage their students in learning using technology.

Summary of Research Findings

This study revealed numerous facts supported by the data emerging from all the survey

instruments, especially the lack of technology skills on the part of the teachers, the lack of professional

development, and the lack of computers and technology support staff.

The study participants included 147 persons from five elementary schools in the 43 schools that

comprise Chula Vista Elementary School District in Chula Vista, California and employ over 2,000

certificated teachers (five teachers were interviewed; 47 teachers completed the Teacher Survey; 90

teachers responded to the Professional Development Survey; 5 principals answered the Principal Survey).

The 156 online participants were students/teachers who have taken Educational Technology at National

University in San Diego, California for the last five years. The research study intended to answer the

following questions:

1. What are the best practices for using classroom technology to facilitate learning in K-12

classrooms in the Chula Vista School District in California?

2. Are the currently available training programs designed to assist K-12 teachers in using

classroom technology promoting these best practices in the Chula Vista School District in

California?

3. What recommendations can be made to strengthen the preparation currently provided to K-12

teachers to enable them to more effectively integrate technology into their classrooms in the

Chula Vista School District in California?

The data gathered for this study through quantitative and qualitative analysis and summarized in

the previous chapter revealed and confirmed the following findings for the three aforementioned research

questions: (a) the absence of technology integration into the classroom teaching, (b) technology plays a

significant role in learning if given proper technology planning, and (c) professional development training

is needed for teachers to enhance their technology skills. Based on the data, no programs designed for

classroom technology currently exist to implement the best practices to facilitate learning inside the

classrooms. There is only one elementary school that implements teacher collaboration by holding a
 85

meeting three hours a month to exchange teaching techniques and resources. Considering the number of

teachers working in the school division of the school district it is truly an insignificant number. Some may

consider the program significant in nature but it lacks the impact to influence the teachers’ ability to

enhance their teaching skills in using technology.

The participants in this study produced valuable data that can be used to approach the various

issues surrounding the importance of technology integration into the K-12 curriculum to help teachers be

more effective educators and to help students become better learners and critical thinkers so they can

compete globally. According to Grabe and Grabe (2007) the research originated by the Panel on

Educational Technology in 1997 found three primary reasons for the lack of teacher preparation in the use

of technology. First, colleges of education frequently have no better equipment than K-12 institutions do

and only a limited inventory of the instructional software used in K-12 classrooms. Second, a large number

of college faculty members are unable to make appropriate use of technology in their own classrooms or

are unwilling to try because of their own lack of preparation, anxiety, or disinterest. And third, the teacher

preparation curriculum typically confines experiences with technology to a single course, one that

concentrates on learning to use the technology rather than how to facilitate learning with technology. These

findings still hold true in the present study. A slow adaptation of technology use by teachers exists despite

the requirement by the national government to shift the methods of teaching and incorporate technology.

Many school administrators are still struggling for more funding to support technology use and are unable

to provide ample time for their teachers to attend professional development training workshops. The

teacher responses indicated that technology at their respective schools still lack the support necessary to

properly integrate and use technology into their teaching practice. Some of the teachers during the course of

the interview demonstrated characteristics of effective teachers such as their willingness to learn and use

technology in their classrooms. In fact, most of the interviewees are using available technology such as

video streaming and collaborating via the Internet with other teachers who belong to another school district.

These teachers are also craving for additional release time so they can attend professional development

courses to enhance their skills in technology. They do need the time for training and to practice what

they’ve learned in the process in order for them to be effective inside the classrooms and accommodate the

diverse needs of their students. Educational technology is not an option any longer for every preservice
 86

teacher who is taking their teaching credentials and the present teachers who are now required to meet the

standards set forth by the provisions under the NCLB Act of 2001.

Finally, to enhance the clarity and value of this study, the researcher used the quantitative and

qualitative instruments to answer the three questions by exploring data analysis that produced a

generalizability of the data that can be used for comparison at other schools.

Conclusions of Findings

Question One Conclusion

What are the best practices for using classroom technology to facilitate learning in K-12

classrooms in the Chula Vista School District in California?

The results obtained, tabulated, and critically analyzed for Question One of this research reflected

a considerable absence of best practices in using classroom technology to facilitate the learning process

inside the K-12 classrooms. According to study participants, the best practices that are supposed to be in

placed include the following: the extensive use of technology tools; constant collaboration of teachers in

sharing their best methods of teaching; allowing the students to conduct experiments to enhance their

pedagogical learning; and establishing a checklist for good practice audit. It is helpful for teachers to have

effective guidelines that can be incorporated into their teaching process. The root cause of lack of

technology integration into the classroom comes from the lack of hardware (computers), document

cameras, projectors, DVD players, and other firmware that are important in the timely facilitation of

knowledge to capture the teachable moment for students. The limitations of students to Internet and

computer access contributes to the loss of opportunity in learning significant skills and competencies that

are required in every grade level specified by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Therefore, most of the

teachers reported they were not able to integrate technology into their curriculum to deliver or use the best

practices of instruction in their teaching process. Additionally, the teachers were not afforded the time

necessary to attend technology training to enhance their skills of integrating technology into their teaching

practice. When this condition occurs, the students were being deprived of quality education that they fully

deserve and were unable to attain the desired level of competencies that they really needed to be successful
 87

in the future in their chosen career field. Technology is an effective communication channel in learning

and establishing solid connection for more collaboration among students and teachers.

Question Two Conclusion

Are the currently available training programs designed to assist K-12 teachers in using classroom

technology promoting these best practices in the Chula Vista School District in California?

The data gathered from the teachers indicated that technology is essential in learning and it should

be incorporated into the teaching process. The teachers who embrace technology were willing to play an

active role in their technical training and professional development. The majority of them wanted to

increase their skills with computers and software applications. Along with this desire, the administrators

indicated that technology has changed the teaching process, the learning process, and the administrative

process significantly. In addition, the administrators have pushed for more technology in their schools

through effective technology planning, sufficient financial support, and continuous professional

development technology training for teachers. They have a long road ahead before technology

competencies can be achieved within the framework and objectives of the No Child Left Behind Act of

2001. The local and national agencies involved in education need to closely collaborate with the school

administrators so that technology programs will receive tremendous support from both public and private

entities. Their input in the process of incorporating technology within the school system can produce

significant results in the student’s academic performance that will truly help them in meeting the challenges

of the future. A more robust plan and solid support of all key players in education ranging from technology

coordinators, technology providers, planners, administrators, and teachers are needed to spark technology

integration into our classrooms for the benefit of our students.

In reviewing the technology plans of the five elementary schools selected, only one has a training

program in place wherein the teachers collaborate three hours a month which they call horizontal

articulation (grade levels collaborate and share instructional techniques and materials) and the other,

referred to as vertical articulation wherein all teachers meet together once a month to discuss items that

they think are necessary for improving their teaching practice. Thus, based upon this information, programs

designed to use classroom technology don’t exist to promote the best practices. One of the elementary
 88

schools did specify on their technology plan that all students will receive weekly instructions; however, this

is only possible if they have the computers in place to fulfill the goal.

Question Three Conclusion

What recommendations can be made to strengthen the preparation currently provided to K-12

teachers to enable them to more effectively integrate technology into their classrooms in the Chula

Vista School District in California?

The data derived from the interviews reveal that teachers do need professional development

training courses to learn technology skills that they can utilize in their teaching. If they are afforded the

opportunity to see how technology works in their classroom, they are more willing to integrate technology

without any fear of failing except when the hardware breaks down without warning. Along with this

possibility of hardware failure is the need for instantaneous technical support to maintain the momentum of

training and prevent the loss of valuable instructional time for the students. The school district needs to

provide computer hardware to teachers so they may be able to enhance student learning and produce

effective outcomes from the use of technology. Accessibility to the Internet and the availability of hardware

has been the popular issues for most teachers who are not able to integrate technology into their teaching.

Another important factor that teachers need towards their training is time. They need the time to hone their

skills through practice so they can be more effective inside the classroom. If they are lacking in technology

skills, their time and effort become futile and they will not be effective in their instructional practices. With

technology, teachers are able to connect with most types of learners who exhibit the multiple intelligences

categorized by Dr. Howard Gardner in his theory that gained fame among educators. The seven multiple

intelligences formulated by Dr. Gardner are (a) Linguistic Intelligence, (b) Logical-Mathematical

Intelligence, (c) Musical Intelligence, (d) Body-Kinesthetic Intelligence, (e) Spatial Intelligence, (f )

Interpersonal Intelligence, (g) Intrapersonal Intelligence, and (h) Naturalist Intelligence (Smith, 2002).

There is a need for educators to consider exploring the theory of Dr. Gardner to tackle the complex issues

surrounding the use of technology and integrating it into the classroom to maximize the teaching process

and achieve outstanding results from the students’ performance.

 89

The study found that there is an absence of best practices for using classroom technology to

facilitate learning in the K-12 classroom. Along with this condition, most of the teachers were not able to

promote the best practices due to lack of computers and the technology skills to operate them. In addition to

these discoveries, the limited release time of two days per year to attend professional development training

is just not sufficient to learn, to experiment, and to practice new technologies designed for educational

advancement. The researcher concluded that it is logical to develop professional development courses

focused on helping teachers to incorporate technology into their lesson plans to enhance their teaching

practices and increase student learning outcomes. It is the earnest intent of the researcher to introduce this

study to as many educators as possible to make it known that technology skills are necessary for teachers at

all levels of education to promote learning and to drive all communities—both local and international—to

achieve great academic success.

Numerous researches have evolved that addressed the employment of technology in education and

it is time for the school administrators to act on meeting the technology standards mandated by No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001. Many professionals from both private and public organizations have been taking

essential steps to install continuous technology use inside the classrooms ranging from smart board,

document cameras, video streaming, second life, and virtual classrooms; many more are being developed

by Canada, India, Japan, Australia, and the United States.

Technology skills can be a powerful force that can transform and empower students to realize their

dreams and reach their goals through collaboration and open communication with their counterparts in all

parts of the United States of America bridging the distance gap. Numerous technologies have evolved in

the last five years such as blogging and other social sites such as Facebook and Friendster. These sites are

being used by many professionals, students, and instructors as their tools in online communication for

information interchange which remains as a very valuable part of their daily business activity. There are

still opportunities waiting for anyone who is willing to make a difference in technology innovation that can

be considered critical as progress continues to shape the lives of many here in the United States and most

regions around the world.

 90

Recommendations

To accomplish significant progress in technology skills, it is helpful for educators to form a

cohesive collaboration among themselves to expand their awareness in technology which is constantly

moving forward in speed and complexity. A study of effective teaching strategies using technology would

unfold various opportunities in developing best teaching practices across the classrooms of our nation and

other countries. The mutual exchanges of constructive ideas and adopting them to advance our educational

process would provide significant growth to any economy seeking to promote technology inventions and

discover alternative scientific solutions to promote knowledge that may allow significant change and

progress. It is essential for the state officials to provide the necessary technology tools to the schools. The

administrators are then responsible for the development and implementation of professional development

courses filled with powerful information in technology that will motivate teachers as well as students. The

administrators should also consider increasing the amount of release time for teachers to enable them to

hone their skills.

The interviews conducted only confirmed and supported the quantitative data collected for this

study. The researcher feels strongly that the teachers need the support of not only the principals, but the

district and the state level administrators. More professional development training time for teachers in

educational technology is necessary if we expect greater academic performance from our students. Policies

of the schools relating to technology use inside the classroom should be aligned with the standards listed

under the National Educational Technology Plan in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Preservice teachers should also consider taking a technology assessment prior to starting any

program of study such as a teaching credential or master’s degree in teaching. The assessment will serve as

a guide to what level of training is necessary for them to fulfill the NCLB standards upon completion of the

training. Professional development for improving technological skills should consist of the following

learning topics: Level A, Basic Computer Skills; Level B, Advanced Computer Skills; Level C,

Professional Computer Skills, and Level D, Computer Networking Skills. Moreover, the preservice

teachers should also consider taking the professional development courses designed for technology skills at

the early stage of their training instead of taking the educational technology course as the last subject of

their program. Universally, these skills can become a part of ongoing training for preservice teachers and
 91

current teachers who lack the technology skills necessary to become NCLB compliant. Teachers in our

schools will be ready to elevate learning of their students by integrating technology into their instructions

whenever appropriate, especially during the most teachable moments.

As a result of this study, the researcher has established the ISSPTE.ORG (International

Symposium of Scholar Practitioners in Technology Education) to initiate the collaboration process of all

educators towards the implementation of technology in K-12 education as well as in colleges and

universities. The primary focus and intent of this organization is to unite the scholar practitioners and work

together to enhance the technology skills that are needed to enable the teachers to incorporate technology

into their teaching process. Accordingly, an e-magazine entitled The Scholar Practitioner will be

incorporated into the site for the publication of technology articles addressing research in science and new

developments in technology. Numerous researchers have shown that through persistent collaboration

educators are able to bridge the gap between knowledge and ignorance and use this as the blueprint for

success. Never-ending challenges towards increasing skills program in technology will continue to grow as

research engineers and research scientists keep on developing new technology or innovations. It is

advantageous for United States to lead other countries in research and innovations leading to powerful

technology learning tools.

In addition to completing this study, the researcher attended the 15th Annual Education

Technology Conference which was held in Boston, Massachusetts on July 28 to July 31, 2008. The main

objective of the conference was to share new technology and best practices among teachers, community

college instructors, professors, administrators, and technology leaders of higher learning to serve the next

generation of students. Most of the attendees were coming from various states and some were coming from

different countries such as Canada, England, Brazil, and Japan. The main highlight of the conference was

the speech of Dr. Adrian Sannier from Arizona State University where he serves as Deputy Senior Vice

President and University Technology Officer. He introduced initiatives that are catapulting his campus into

a future radically different from the institution’s past. Representatives from universities conducted various

presentations of the technology they are using inside their campuses ranging from Web 2.0 Tools in Higher

Education, Virtual World Consortium, Next-Generation ePortfolio, Using Second Life for Higher

Education, Blogs, and Wikis.

 92

At the conclusion of the event, Julie Evans, the Project Tomorrow CEO presented her findings

from the 367,000 respondents to the Speak Up 2007 survey (since 2003: 1.2 million surveys). Speak Up is

an annual online process for collecting, analyzing, and reporting on the authentic, unfiltered voices of

today’s K-12 students, teachers, parents, and administrators. In her PowerPoint presentation she shared key

findings from the Speak Up 2007 data. According to Evans, “Digital disconnect is alive and well: the gap

exists between how today’s student learn and how they live!” In addition, disconnects can be found

between students and teachers, between advanced tech students and other students, between girls and boys,

and between older and younger students. In the survey students in K-12 indicated the #1 tech tool or service

that will impact their learning is a laptop. They indicated how they wanted to use mobile devices to support

learning: communications, collaborations, creativity, and productivity (see Appendix L and Appendix M

for two slides). The results from this survey highlight the importance for schools and teachers to

incorporate technology integration into the K-12 curriculum and into their instructional practices, to

embrace and adapt new technologies to enhance the learning process for their diverse learners, and to better

prepare students to be successful and competitive in the global workforce.

Theory and Elements of Learning

This researcher unveiled the theory and elements of learning as a result of this study. This research

should energize the teachers and scholars on the uses of technology and incorporating it in their practices

that will enable them to guide and teach every student to achieve his or her full potential. The continuous

growth and advances in technology has the potential to contribute greatly towards the learning process of

all students. The teachers’ role is to ensure that proper technology is in place to maximize the use of varied

resources that will help students perform to their potential. This researcher is proposing that the important

elements in learning such as intrinsic motivation, the readiness of student to learn, emotional and mental

stability, and the ability to learn, should be considered when planning for lesson plans or for classroom

activities using technology.

 93

Future Research

On future research it is beneficial to replicate this study to explore how to empower teachers by

using their present competencies on the subjects they teach and how to integrate the technology skills to

enhance student learning outcomes. Research is needed to help teachers in developing their own plan of

actions for achieving excellence in effective teaching methods or practices through the use of meaningful

dialogue that allows the free flow of ideas for continuous improvement of their current technology skills. It

is also essential for them to continue the practice of auditing their teaching practice to ensure that they are

up to speed when it comes to new changes in technology. It is also advantageous to follow the major trends

in technology development or shift of students’ skills so they will be able to face the challenges of

improving the world’s education system for the benefit of humanity. Researchers should also consider

unveiling the attitudes of administrators towards technology integration and their influences on their staff.

Recognizing the importance and role of technology in education, it is practical to formulate a systematic

approach towards attaining a well-balanced research program that clearly defines the intended objectives.

Setting the milestones for completion of the objectives is necessary as well as identifying the major barriers

that can impede the process of research. Early in the study, hypothesis and theories should be developed,

refined, and applied for conducting data analysis to arrive at the answers for the study. The statement of the

problem should be direct, clearly identified and defined for the intended research. It is also advantageous to

consider careful preparations during the design phase of the research instruments to achieve effective data

collection. The research methods approach is also essential to be clearly defined and specifically include

every phenomenon of study to achieve significant success. With these elements properly addressed, future

researchers will be able to produce a significant study that can truly make a difference in the field of

technology integration in education or any other field of study that is valuable for humanity.

Concluding Comments

This researcher explored, sought and then carefully analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data

gathered for the three questions formulated to obtain the answers and present the facts on the true

conditions of technology inside the classrooms within the elementary school district of Chula Vista,

California. First, whether the best practices for using classroom technology to facilitate learning in the K-12
 94

classrooms in the Chula Vista Elementary School District were present or not. Secondly, are the currently

available training programs designed to assist K-12 teachers in using classroom technology promoting

these best practices. Third, what recommendations can be made to strengthen the preparation currently

provided to K-12 teachers to enable them to more effectively integrate technology into their classrooms.

The data were presented using tables and appropriate scales of measurement ranging from Likert scale to

express the rating average of each sub question to the summary table for the interview questions.

Perhaps on the future research towards the effective integration of technology into the K-12

classroom environment, the teachers and administrators will be able to generate fresh ideas that will

enhance the learning outcomes of the students. The researcher will align his or her inquiries/investigation to

accommodate the standards set forth by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to promote professional

development training at regular intervals for teachers. The next generation of learners or students will

continue to drive the changes in the education field as they accept the responsibility of learning. Shifting

the responsibility of learning to the students is another paradigm that warrants proper planning, cohesive of

purpose, and solid commitment to achieve success by staying focused towards the goal.
 95

REFERENCES

Anzul, M.& Ely, M. (1997). On writing qualitative research: Living by words.

Routledge Falmer: Bristol, PA.

Barker, C., Pistrang, N., & Elliott, R. (2002). Research methods in clinical psychology: An introduction for
students and practitioners (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Baylor, A. L. & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived
student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39 (4), 395-414.

Bitter, G. G. & Pierson, M. E. (2005). Using technology in the classroom (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education Inc.

Bowland College, (2007). Qualitative vs. quantitative analysis. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from
http://bowland-files.lancs.ac.uk/monkey/ihe/linguistics/corpus3/3qual.htm

Bracey, B. (2005). Summary of the online forum on education and an overview of contributions of
participants to the online forum on education. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from http://event-africa-
networking.web.cern.ch/event-africa-networking/cdrom/RSIS/RSIS-Annexes.pdf.

California Standards for the Teaching Profession (1997, January). Retrieved August 6, 2006,
from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/cstpreport.pdf

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research.
Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

Caudron, S. (1997). The human side of a technology launch. Training & Development, 81(2), 21-24.

Creswell, J.W. (2001). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. New Jersey: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method Approaches (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum.

Dede, C. (1998). Teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

DiPietro, K. (2004). The effects of a constructivist intervention on preservice teachers. Educational

Technology & Society, 7(1), 63-77.

Driscoll, M. (1997). Defining Internet-based and web-based training. Performance Improvement, 36(4), 5-
9.

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center (2007). Education Week. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from
http://www.edweek.org/gov/tc07.

Evans, J. (2008, July 31). Shootout! Bracing for the Next-Gen Student Wave: Myth or Mandate? Paper
presented at the 15th Annual Education Technology Conference, Boston, MA.

Faculty of Education, University of Alberta. (2005). Integrating technology into the curriculum. Retrieved
May 24, 2005, from http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/techcur/theory/techintegration.htm.
 96

Ferguson, R. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test score gap. In C.
Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White Test Score Gap (pp. 273-317). Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.

Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: Verso.

Fiske, D. W. & Shweder, R. A. (Eds.). (1986). Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.

Gay, S.M. (1997, August). Teaching with technology: A case study of teacher’s perceptions of
implementing computers into the classroom.
Retrieved November 2, 2005 from http://dwb4.unl.edu/Diss/SGay/SGayDiss.html>

Goldhaber, D. (2002). The Mystery of Good Teaching. Education Next, 2(1): 50-55.

Goldhaber, D. & Anthony, E. (2005). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National board
certification as a signal of effective teaching. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Goldhaber, D., Brewer, D.& Eide, E. (1999).School choice in Milwaukee: Are private schools creaming off
the best students? In W. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in school finance 1998. (pp.33-45).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2007). Integrating technology for meaningful learning (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.

Green, K. C. (2000). Technology and instruction: compelling, competing, and complementary visions for
the instructional role of technology in higher education. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from
http://www.campuscomputing.net.

Hanushek, E.A. (1999). Improving student outcomes: The role of teacher workforce policies. Retrieved
January 6, 2007, from
http://www.albany.edu/edfin/BLL%20EFRC%20Symp%2004%20Single.pdf

Hanushek, E.A. (2002, February). NBER working paper No. 8799. Retrieved January 6, 2007, from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w8799.pdf

Hara, N. & Kling, R. (1999). Students' frustrations with a web-based distance education course. Retrieved
August 11, 2005, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/hara/.

Hawley, D. & Valli, L. (2000). Learner-centered professional development. Phi Delta Kappa Center for
Evaluation, Development, and Research, 27, 7-10.

Hernandez-Ramos, P., Ph.D. (2005, Fall). If not here, where? Understanding teacher’s use of technology in
Silicon Valley schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 59.

Hopey, C. (1999). Technology and adult education: Rising expectations. Adult Learning, 10 (4), 26-27.

Howland, J. & Wedman, J. (2004). A process model for faculty development: Individualizing technology
learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12. Retrieved January 03, 2007, from
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5007672373
 97

Illinois College Teacher Preparation Program. (2005). Preparing competent and caring teachers for
leadership and service. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from
http://www.ic.edu/educ/prep/ConceptualFramework.pdf.

Imel, S. (2003). Informal adult learning and the Internet. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,
Career, and Vocational Education. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED481327.

Kay, Robin H. (2006, Summer). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice
education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4),
383-408.

Le Blanc, R. (1998). Good teaching: The top ten requirements. Retrieved July 30, 2006, from
http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/topten.htm.

Liu, M. (2004). Examining the performance and attitudes of sixth graders during their use of a problem-
based hypermedia learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 20 (3), 357-379.

Luo, M. & Dappen,L. (2005, February). Mixed methods design for an objective-based evaluation of a
magnet school assistance program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28 (1), 109-118. Retrieved
April 21, 2007, from http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/S06_341.cws_home/arts_et

Marold, K., Larsen, G., & Shaw, K. (1999). Usability testing for computer skills WBT (web based training)
program. Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research
(pp. 304-309). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Motiwalla, L. F. (2005). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education.
Manuscript submitted for publication.

Murray, H. G. (1991) Characteristics of effective teaching. Retrieved March 3, 2003, from

http://www.unl.edu/mcnair/Handouts/EffectiveTeaching.pdf

National Education Association (2002). Great public schools for every child. Retrieved November 05,
2005, from http://www.nea.org/index.html?cmd=dfhome

National Education Association (2006-2007). 2006-07 ISTA Handbook. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from
http://www.ista-in.org/uploads/06-07%20ISTA%20HANDBOOK.pdf

National Technology Plan. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the Internet, the
law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/plan.pdf.

Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating nulticultural learning Communities New York: NY,
Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the
connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved August15, 2005, from
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1995/9541.html.

Owston, R. (1997). The world wide web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning? Educational
Researcher, 26(3), 27-33.

Panel on Educational Technology. (1997). Background paper for the expert panel on educational
technology. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/Background/framework.html
 98

Peterman, L., McGillivray, K., & Frantz, J. (1998). Professional development: From reports to reality, part
2. Learning and the new technologies perspectives, 1(6). Retrieved August 15, 2005, from:
http://www.edc.org/LNT/news/Issue6/feature.htm.

Pettenani, M. C., Giuli, D., & Khaled, A. O. (2001). Information technology and staff development: Issues
and problems related to new skills and competence acquisition. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 9, 153-169.
Polselli, R. (2002). Combining web-based training and mentorship to improve technology integration in the
K-12 classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10 (2), 247-272.

Rawlinson, D. R. & Bartel. K. (2006). Implementing wireless PDA technology in the IT curriculum.
Education Quarterly, 29(1), 44-47.

Riger, S., Reyes, O., Watts, R. W., Kelley, J. G., Shinn, M., Cherniss, C., et al. (2004). Faculty deconstructs
participatory research. In L. Jason, C.B. Keys, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R.R. Taylor, & M.I. Davis
(Eds.), Participatory community research: Theories and methods in action (pp. 233-238).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Robinson, S. & Smith, S. (2003). Technology integration through collaborative cohorts: Preparing future
teachers to use technology. Remedial and Special Education, 24. Retrieved January 6, 2007, from
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001937151

Rothstein, R. (2000). Combining web-based training and mentorship to improve technology integration in
the K-12 classroom. College Student Journal, 31, 304-495.

Ryan, W. (1997). Delivery systems revisited. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 10(2), 18-26.

San Diego State University. (2006). California standards vs. ISTE standards. Retrieved August 2, 2006,
from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/castandards/index.htm

Sargent, K. I. (2003). The Maine learning technology initiative: What is the impact on teacher beliefs and
instructional practices? (Occasional Paper # 3). Center for Education Policy, Applied Research
and Evaluation, University of Southern Maine.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students (3rd ed.). London:
Prentice Hall Financial.

Saunders, P. (1999). Characteristics of effective teaching. Retrieved April 6, 2003, from

http://www.wmich.edu/teachlearn/new/char_effect_tch.html

Scheffler, F. & Logan, J. (1999). Integrating ICT into the learning environment at Sevenoaks Senior
College: How teachers and students use technology in teaching and learning, 9-10. Retrieved
November 6, 2006, from
http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/ald01027.htm

Segal, B. (2001, May 4). Technology and education: What’s around the corner? Keynote address delivered
to ECOO (Educational Computing Organization of Ontario), Ontario, Canada.

Simon M. K. & Francis J. B (2001). The dissertation and research cookbook (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
 99

Simonson, N. (1998, Winter). Design considerations in converting a standup training class to web-based
training: Some guidelines from cognitive flexible theory. Journal of Interactive Instruction
Development, 10(3), 3-9.

Smith, J.K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational
Researcher, 12(3), 6-13.

Smith, M. K. (2002, 2008). Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences. The Encyclopedia of Informal
Education. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm.

Smolka, C. M. (2002). Adult learning, social sciences, and technology: A combination for the future.
International Journal of Public Administration, 25 (9/10), 113-124.

Stepich, D. (1996). Instructional technology for teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stufflemean, D. L. (2001). Evaluation model. New Directions for Evaluation, 89, 7-98.

Tebes, J. K. & Kraemer, D. T. (1991). Qualitative and quantitative knowing in mutual support research:
Some lessons from the recent history of scientific psychology. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 19, 739-756.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/2000102/pdf/questionnaire.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st
century: A report on teachers' use of technology. Washington, DC: Author.

Walberg, H. J. & Uguroglu, M. (1980). Motivation and educational productivity: Theories, results, and
implications. In L.J. Fyans (Eds.), Achievement motivation to learn (Rev. ed., pp. 34-75). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Williams, J. G., et. al, (n.d.). Technology and the classroom: Current practices in the Pennsylvania school
system. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from
http://www.wasd.org:8080/docushare/dsweb/Get/Version-168/classroom.pdf>

Wlodkowski, R.J. (1999). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all
adults (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Wright, P., Horn, S., & Saunders, W. (1997). Teachers and classroom heterogeneity: Their effects on
educational outcomes. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11:1,
57-67.

Zhao, Y. & Bryant, F. L.(2005). Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to high levels of
technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers’ technology integration after state
mandated technology training. Retrieved October 25, 2006, from
http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume5/Zhao.pdf
 100

APPENDIX A. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHERS SURVEY

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. Please be assured that all information gathered will be
handled with utmost confidentiality, and respondents will never be personally identified in research reports.
Only if you choose to be contacted by the research team for a follow-up interview will we use your
personal information, which will not be shared with anyone.

There are no “right” or “wrong” answers to the questions, so please be candid in all your responses to the
questions.

Please read the instructions at the beginning of each section before answering the questions.

Professional Development

1. Do you think that your school district provides adequate technical training and support for teachers?
Yes No
2. For each of the following statements, please check ( ) “Yes” or “No”.
YES NO
I have been taught software applications relevant to my curriculum level.
I have participated in hands-on opportunities to use software applications.
I have observed another educator model how to use a specific software application
I have been provided technology lesson ideas relevant to my curriculum level.
I have been given enough time to practice using applications.
Technology was an important part of my pre-service education program.
I have received enough instruction on how to use new software applications.
I have attended technology workshops, seminars, and classes.
I would like to increase my skills with computers and software.
I participate in technology learning sessions at least once a month.
I have observed another teacher at my school integrating technology in the
classroom.
I would like more training in technology.
I would like more opportunities to observe other teachers using technology.
I believe increasing my training in technology will lead to an increased use of
technology in my classroom.

[This space was intentionally left blank. Please proceed to the next page. ]
 101

3. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by
checking ( ) only one of the boxes next to it:

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
I feel that the school district provides
many in-service opportunities to train
teachers to design lessons that integrate
technology.
My pre-service teacher training program included teaching
with technology methodologies that were beneficial to me.
I think that our administration provides us with adequate
funding to purchase software that we can integrate into our
curriculum.
I believe teachers need release time to collaborate with
technology support staff to design effective lessons that
integrate technology.
I prefer project-based learning opportunities over more
traditional teacher-directed delivery methods.
The best way for teachers to learn about technology
integration is to read books and other print materials on their
own time.
Whenever I have a question about using technology in the
classroom I call a trusted teacher who is an experienced user.
Teachers should feel comfortable letting their students teach
them about anything related to technology.
The Internet—and the web, in particular—is now the best
medium for me to learn about almost anything.

Source: Hernandez-Ramos, P., Ph.D. (2005, Fall). If not here, where? Understanding teacher’s use of
technology in Silicon Valley Schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 59.
 102

APPENDIX B. PRINCIPAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Technology Availability and Training Proficiency for the Classroom

2006
Date __________________
District Name ___________________________________________________
School Name ____________________________________________________
School ID Code __________
Principal Name __________________________________________________

A. Documentation to be collected. Please indicate all items that are available and attached.
_____ Technology plan
_____ Annual Report (if available)
_____ Vita/Resume of principal
_____ Vita/Resume of teacher for room visited

B. General School Information:

1. _______ Total number of students
_______ Number of male students
_______ Number of female students

2. Which curriculum areas use technology the most in the building? (Check all
that apply.)
____ English / language arts
____ World languages
____ Mathematics
____ Sciences
____ Social studies
____ Fine arts
____ Other, please specify _______________________________________

3. Technology use by Administration (Please check all that apply.)

____ Clerical functions
____ Scheduling
____ Budgeting
____ Financial transactions
____ Communications
____ Reporting
____ Other (please specify) ________________________________________

4. Technology support for classroom teacher (Please check all that apply.)
____ Instruction
____ Classroom management (e.g. grading, attendance, etc.)
____ Other (please specify) __________________________________________

5. Indicate the percentage of teachers with advanced (10 or more hours) of training
in the following areas
____ Internet
____ Web page design
____ Programming languages (other than HTML)
____ Computer-based instruction
____ Computer supported cooperative learning (CSCL)
 103

C. Computer Use at School:

1. Where are the computers located in the building? (Check all that apply.)
____ Classrooms
____ Computer labs
____ Library / media center
____ Administrative offices
____ Other location(s), please specify _____________________________________

2. Are there technology courses in the curriculum? Y / N If yes, indicate the level(s) of the course(s).
____ Concept level (theory)
____ Beginner skill level
____ Intermediate skill level
____ Advanced skill level

3. Who is the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for the school? (Indicate your answer.)
____ Phone company
____ Cable company
____ Private ISP

4. What school functions are automated? (Please check all that apply.)
____ Attendance
____ Enrollment
____ Inventory
____ Payroll
____ Purchasing
____ Receivables
____ Payables
____ General Ledger
____ Reporting To PDE
____ Others (please specify)
______________________________________________________________________________________

5. What school hardware, software, and networking facilities were acquired with
school funds?
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

6. What professional development activities were funded by your school?

______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

7. $___________________ Total school budget

8. $___________________ Total school budget for professional development

9. _______ % of school budget for technology

D. School Principal Information:

1. How important is technology for the following areas of your duties?
__Administratively
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not Important Somewhat Extremely
Important Important
 104

__For instruction
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not Important Somewhat Extremely
Important Important
__For community building
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not Important Somewhat Extremely
Important Important

2. How do you budget for technology? (Please check all that apply.)
____ Ad hoc
____ Based on the technology plan
____ Replacement cycle

3. Do you use technology in school? Y / N At home? Y / N

4. Do you use email in school? Y / N At home? Y / N

5. How has technology changed the teaching process?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not At All Somewhat Totally Changed It
Reasons for change:

6. How has technology changed the learning process?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not At All Somewhat Totally Changed It
Reasons for change:
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

8. How has technology changed the management/administrative process?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not At All Somewhat Totally Changed It
Reasons for change:
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

9. What is the motivation for using technology?

______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

10. What have been the benefits of technology for this school?
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

11. What are the difficulties/barriers/shortcomings of using technology?

______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
 105

12. If you could acquire more technology what would it be?

______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

13. Additional comments—

______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

Source: Williams, J. G., et. al., (n.d.). Technology and the classroom: Current practices in the
Pennsylvania school system. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from
http://www.wasd.org:8080/docushare/dsweb/Get/Version-168/classroom.pdf>
 106

APPENDIX C. TEACHER SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Technology Availability and Training Proficiency for the Classroom

Date __________________
District Name ___________________________________________________
School Name ____________________________________________________
School ID Code __________
Grade(s) Taught_________
Teacher Name ___________________________________________________

A. Teacher Information:
1. Technology training received—
___________ Date of latest training (year)
Type of training –
___ Internet
___ Web page design
___ Programming languages (other than HTML)
___ Computer-based instruction
___ Computer supported cooperative learning (CSCL)
___ Other, specify type
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

2. Level of training received (Check highest level of training received.)

___ Beginner
___ Intermediate
___ Advanced

3. Describe your use of technology

Word processing for ______________________________________________
Spreadsheet for __________________________________________________
Data base management system (DBMS) for____________________________
Email for ___________________________________________
WWW for __________________________________________
Video Conference for _________________________________
Html for ____________________________________________
Graphics Software for __________________________________
Programming Language for ______________________________
Electronic Bulletin Board for _____________________________
Other: ________________________________________________

4. Years of technology use: None / Less than 1 year / 1-3 years / 4+ years (Circle choice.)

5. _______ How much time do you spend each day using technology in your classroom? (minutes)

6. _____ Estimate the percentage of your lesson plans in a given week that integrate (computer) technology

7. ________ How much time each day are students expected to use technology? (minutes)
 107

8. Do you have a computer at home? Y / N If yes, please complete the following items—
Type and configuration (e.g. Pentium with Windows 95) _______________________
Internet connection? Y / N If yes, indicate type (e.g. individual modem, cable
modem) _____________________ and speed (e.g. 28.8kbps) ___________

Home use of computer (Please check all that apply.)

____ Entertainment
____ Shopping/Buying
____ Information Seeking
____ Problem Solving
____ Learning
____ Lesson Planning
____ Email

9. Indicate your enthusiasm for using technology.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No Enthusiasm Some Enthusiasm Very Enthusiastic

10. How has technology changed the teaching process in your classroom?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not At All Somewhat Totally Changed It

11. How has technology changed the learning process in your classroom?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not At All Somewhat Totally Changed It

B. Classroom Environment (Student Information):

1. ______ Total number of students in the class
2. ______ Total number of male students in the class
3. _____ Average age in the class
4. _____ Average student grade in the class

5. How much times, on average, do students use computers in the classroom?

____ 0 minutes per day
____ 1 to 30 minutes per day
____ 31 to 60 minutes per day
____ over 60 minutes per day

6. How much times, on average, do students use computers outside the classroom but in the school?
____ 0 minutes per day
____ 1 to 30 minutes per day
____ 31 to 60 minutes per day
____ over 60 minutes per day

7. Estimate the percentage of time computers are used by students for the following
activities (at school or home).
____ simulation
____ modeling
____ practice exercises
____ group learning
____ problem solving
____ research (information seeking)
____ experimentation
____ games
 108

8. ________Number of students with computers at home

9. Average time using computers by students outside of school?

_____ 0 minutes per day
_____ 1 to 30 minutes per day
_____ 31 to 60 minutes per day
_____ over 60 minutes per day

10. How do students with computers at home use them? (Please provide number of students.)
_____ Entertainment
_____ Information seeking
_____ Shopping/buying
_____ Homework

11. ________ Student home computers with an Internet connection (Please indicate the number of
students.)
_______ Number with modem speed <= 28.8kbps
_______ Number with modem speed > 28.8kbps

12. ______ Percentage of parents who are professionals (e.g. engineers, teachers, lawyers, doctors)

13. Please indicate if you have the following items provided below.
__Computers (C) ________Count
__TVs (TV)
__Video conference equipment (VCE)
__Printers (Pr) ________Count
__Plotters (Pl)
__Modems (M) ________Count
__Location of telephone jacks (TJ)
__Location of LAN connection (LC)
__Location of writing boards (WB)
__Location of projection screens (PS)
__Location of work surfaces (tables) (WS)
Room Layout Floor Plan—

C. General Comments:
1. What is the motivation for using technology?
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

2. What have been the benefits of technology for this class?

______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

3. What are the difficulties/barriers/shortcomings of using technology?

______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
 109

4. If you could acquire more technology what would it be?

______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

5. If you acquired more technology how would you use it?

______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

6. Additional Comments—
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

Source: Williams, J. G., et. al., (n.d.). Technology and the classroom: Current practices in the
Pennsylvania school system. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from
http://www.wasd.org:8080/docushare/dsweb/Get/Version-168/classroom.pdf>
 110

APPENDIX D. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Teacher: Location:

Grade/Subject: Date/Time:

1. Could you describe your experiences in acquiring technology knowledge and skills from the web-
based training and mentoring?

2. What types of frustrations or limitations do you experience in trying to use technology in your
teaching?

3. How do you try to overcome these frustrations or limitations?

4. Which types of teaching strategies appear to be most successful when you are using technology?

5. How long do you think it will take you to infuse technology into your teaching in the way you envision
it?

6. What types of support would help you continue your progress in using technology in your classroom?

7. What advice would you give to a teacher who has a desire to begin the process of including technology
in their instruction?

8. Identify the most important factor or factors that will determine whether you continue to plan for and
use technology in your classroom lessons.

9. What are your worst fears about this process of incorporating technology into your teaching?

10. What are your best hopes for this process of incorporating technology into your teaching?

11. What do you think of the online learning you have dealt with?

12. Are you completely satisfied with the content of the training?

Source: Gay, S. M. (1997, August). Teaching with technology: A case study of teacher’s perceptions of
implementing computers into the classroom. Retrieved November 02, 2005 from
http://dwb4.unl.edu/Diss/SGay/SGayDiss.html>
 111

APPENDIX E. ONLINE SURVEY OF STUDENTS ATTENDING NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

ON CAMPUS AND VIA DISTANCE LEARNING

Please answer the following questions to support my inquiry regarding the presence of effective technology
program for teachers’ best practice in the classroom using technology to promote student’s learning
outcomes.

1a. How many computers (including laptops available on a daily basis) are located in your classroom?
_______
1b. How many of these are used for instruction? _______
1c. How many of the computers located in your classroom currently have access to the Internet? _______
1d. How many of the computers not currently connected to the Internet are capable of being connected?
_______

2. Do you use computers or the Internet for instruction during class time?

3. Do you assign projects that require your students to use a computer?

a. Inside the classroom? Yes............. 1 No .......... 2
b. Outside the classroom? Yes.......... 1 No .......... 2

4. Approximately, what percentage of your students has access to a computer at home? _______ percent.

Because your responses to questions 5 and 6 may be different for different classes/sections you teach,
please select a single class/section to use in your responses to questions 5 and 6. The class you select
should represent a typical class you teach in your main subject area.

5. To what extent do you assign students in your typical class, work that involves using computers or the
Internet in the following ways? (If your school does not have these capabilities please circle 5.)
Not At All (1) Small Extent (2) Moderate Extent (3)
Large Extent (4) NA (5)
a. Practice drills............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
b. Solve problems/analyze data................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
c. Use computer applications such as word processing,
spreadsheets, etc......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
d. Graphical presentation of materials ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5
e. Demonstrations/simulations.................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
f. Produce multimedia reports/projects ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5
g. Research using CD-ROM........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
h. Research using the Internet..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
i. Correspond with experts, authors, students from other
schools, etc., via e-mail or Internet ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

6. On average, how frequently do students in your typical class use each of the following during class
time?
Not At All (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4)
a. Computers in the classroom............................................... 1 2 3 4
b. Computers in a computer lab or library/media center ...... 1 2 3 4
c. Internet from the classroom............................................... 1 2 3 4
d. Internet from a computer lab or library/media center .......1 2 3 4
e. Distance learning via the Internet...................................... 1 2 3 4
f. Distance learning via other modes of interactive media.... 1 2 3 4
g. Graphing calculators.......................................................... 1 2 3 4
 112

Because teachers use computers and the Internet in different ways, questions 7 and 8 refer to the way in
which you use computers and the Internet.

7. Are the following available to you, and if yes, to what extent do you use them?
Available Yes (1) No (2)
If available, extent of use:
Not At All (1) Small Extent (2) Moderate Extent (3) Large Extent (4)
a. Computers in your classroom..................................... 1 2 1 2 3 4
b. Computers elsewhere in the school (e.g., library,
computer lab) ................................................................ 1 2 1 2 3 4
c. Computers at home ................................................... 1 2 1 2 3 4
d. Internet in your classroom ........................................ 1 2 1 2 3 4
e. Internet elsewhere in the school (e.g., library,
computer lab) ................................................................ 1 2 1 2 3 4
f. Internet at home.......................................................... 1 2 1 2 3 4
g. E-mail at school ........................................................ 1 2 1 2 3 4
h. School network through which you can access
the Internet from home ................................................. 1 2 1 2 3 4
Yes.......... 1 No .......... 2
i. Telephone in your classroom...................................... 1 2 1 2 3 4

8. For each objective listed below, please indicate how much you use computers or the Internet at school
and at home to accomplish this goal.
At school: Not At All (1) A Little (2) A Lot (3)
At home: Not At All (1) A Little (2) A Lot (3)
a. Create instructional materials (i.e., handouts, tests, etc.)................ 1 2 3 1 2 3
b. Gather information for planning lessons......................................... 1 2 3 1 2 3
c. Access model lesson plans .............................................................. 1 2 3 1 2 3
d. Access research and best practices for teaching ............................. 1 2 3 1 2 3
e. Multimedia presentations for the classroom.................................... 1 2 3 1 2 3
f. Administrative record keeping (i.e., grades, attendance, etc.) ........ 1 2 3 1 2 3
g. Communicate with colleagues/other professionals ......................... 1 2 3 1 2 3
h. Communicate with students’ parents............................................... 1 2 3 1 2 3
i. Communicate with student(s) outside the classroom/
classroom hours ................................................................................... 1 2 3 1 2 3
j. Post homework or other class requirements or project information 1 2 3 1 2 3
k. Other (specify) _________________________________________ 1 2 3 1 2 3

9. In your opinion, how well prepared are you to use computers and the Internet for classroom instruction?
Not at all prepared...... 1 Somewhat prepared.... 2
Well prepared.............. 3 Very well prepared...... 4

10. To what extent has each of the following prepared you to use computers and the Internet?
Not At All (1) Small Extent (2) Moderate Extent (3) Large Extent (4)
a. College/graduate work..................................................................... 1 2 3 4
b. Professional development activities ................................................ 1 2 3 4
c. Colleagues......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
d. Students.............................................................................................1 2 3 4
e. Independent learning.........................................................................1 2 3 4

11. How many hours of formal professional development in the use of computers and the Internet did
you participate in during the last 3 years?
0 hours ....................................... 1 9-32 hours..... ............................. 3
1-8 hours.................................... 2 More than 32 hours .................... 4
 113

12. Does your school or district:

Yes= 1 No=2
a. Require technology training for teachers? ................................................................. 1 2
b. Encourage technology training with incentives? ....................................................... 1 2
c. Leave it up to teachers to initiate participation? ........................................................ 1 2

13. Does your state, district, or school make the following types of training available to you and, if yes,
have you ever participated in these programs?
Available? Yes (1) No (2) Don’t know (3)
Participated? Yes (1) No (2)
a. Use of computers/basic computer training................................................... 1 2 3 1 2
b. Software applications .................................................................................. 1 2 3 1 2
c. Use of the Internet........................................................................................ 1 2 3 1 2
d. Use of other advanced telecommunications (e.g., interactive audio,
video, closed-circuit TV)................................................................................... 1 2 3 1 2
e. Integration of technology into the curriculum/classroom instruction ............ 1 2 3 1 2
f. Follow-up and/or advanced training ............................................................... 1 2 3 1 2

14. Which of the following types of incentives are available to you for participation in training to use
computers or the Internet?
a. School provides release time from classes or other responsibilities .............................. 1 2 3
b. Expenses are paid (e.g., tuition, travel, books) .............................................................. 1 2 3
c. Stipends are provided...................................................................................................... 1 2 3
d. Course credit toward certification is offered ................................................................. 1 2 3
e. Connection to the Internet from home through your school’s network ......................... 1 2 3
f. Additional resources for you or your classroom (e.g. computers, software, etc.) .......... 1 2 3
g. Other (specify) ___________________________________________________.__._. 1 2 3

15. Is there a “technology coordinator” (i.e., someone on the school or district staff who coordinates
teachers’ instructional
use of computers and helps you or other teachers use computers) at your school?
Yes......... 1 No........... 2

16. Please indicate who at your school provides computer-related assistance to you for each of the
following? (Circle all that apply.)
Use of computers (1) Use of the Internet (2) Technical support (3)
Integrating technology (4) Locating software (5)
a. Technology coordinator ................................. 1 2 3 4 5
b. Library/media specialist ................................. 1 2 3 4 5
c. Classroom teacher........................................... 1 2 3 4 5
d. No assistance provided................................... 1 2 3 4 5
e. Other (specify) ________________________ 1 2 3 4 5

17. Please indicate to what extent, if any, each of the following are barriers to your use of school computers
or the Internet for instruction.
Not a Barrier (1) Small Barrier (2) Moderate Barrier (3) Great Barrier (4)
a. Not enough computers ............................................ 1 2 3 4
b. Outdated, incompatible, or unreliable computers ... 1 2 3 4
c. Internet access is not easily accessible..................... 1 2 3 4
d. Lack of good instructional software ........................ 1 2 3 4
e. Inadequate training opportunities ............................ 1 2 3 4
f. Lack of release time for teachers to learn/practice/
plan ways to use computers or the Internet ................. 1 2 3 4
g. Lack of administrative support ................................ 1 2 3 4
 114

h. Lack of support regarding ways to integrate

telecommunications into the curriculum ..................... 1 2 3 4
i. Lack of technical support or advice ..........................1 2 3 4
j. Lack of time in schedule for students to use
computers in class........................................................ 1 2 3 4
k. Concern about student access to inappropriate
materials ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4
l. Lack of funding......................................................... 1 2 3 4
m. Other (specify) ____________________________ 1 2 3 4

18. Does your school or district have a policy or procedures in place that limit student access to
inappropriate material on the Internet?

19. Including this school year, how many years have you been employed as a teacher? _______ Years
(Include years spent teaching both full and part time and in public and private schools.)

20. What grade(s) do you currently teach at this school? (Circle all that apply.)
PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded

21. What is your main teaching assignment (the field in which you teach the most classes)? (Circle one.)
a. Self-contained (see definition on cover)....... 1
b. English/language arts .................................... 2
c. Mathematics................................................... 3
d. Science .......................................................... 4
e. Social studies/social science ......................... 5
f. Foreign language............................................ 6
g. Arts (e.g., visual arts, music, drama, etc.) .... 7
h. Technology/computer science....................... 8
i. PE/Health........................................................ 9
j. Other (specify) _______________________ 10

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Retrieved August 10, 2006,
from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/2000102/pdf/questionnaire.pdf
 115

APPENDIX F. COMPETENT AND CARING TEACHERS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Competent and caring teachers are convinced that all students can learn regardless of experiential

background, learning preferences and ability levels. They act on this believe by accommodating the diverse

needs of their students through modification they make in their instructional practices. Understanding how

students develop physically, socially, and emotionally and learn intellectually helps competent and caring

teachers select from an array of teaching options that meet the learning demands students bring to the

classroom. Care is taken that all students are treated equitably to ensure that the goals of instruction are

meaningfully and gainfully accomplished (p. 15).

Competent and caring teachers plan and deliver instruction based on their understanding of

individual differences. Skillful teachers learn to “read” their students, anticipating what concepts and

activities certain students will find problematic. They look for signs of individual student progress,

deciding when to alter instructional plans, conference with individual students, and provide instruction

enrichment with additional focus and attention (p. 16).

Formal theories of individual and social learning as well as child/adolescent development become

paramount to the decisions that are made about what is taught, how it is taught, how progress is monitored,

and what and how assistance is provided to each learner. They know that learning is connected

contextually, culturally, and intellectually…[T]he vast majority of teachers cannot be neatly categorized as

behaviorists, humanists, or cognitive theorists. Rather, they are eclectic, selecting and adapting what they

regard as the better features of each system (pp. 16-17).

Source: Illinois College Teacher Preparation Program. (2005). Preparing competent and caring teachers
for leadership and service. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from
http://www.ic.edu/educ/prep/ConceptualFramework.pdf.
 116

APPENDIX G. CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE TEACHERS

1. ENTHUSIASM: use of non-verbal behavior to solicit student attention and interest.

• Speaks in a dramatic or expressive way.

• Moves about while lecturing or presenting.
• Gestures with hands or arms, yet avoids distracting mannerisms.
• Maintains eye contact with students.
• Walks up aisles beside students.
• Avoids reading lecture verbatim from prepared notes or text.
• Smiles while teaching.

2. CLARITY: method used to explain or clarify concepts and principles.

• Gives several examples of each concept.

• Uses concrete everyday examples to explain concepts and principles.
• Defines new or unfamiliar terms.
• Repeats difficult ideas several times.
• Stresses most important points by pausing, speaking slowly, raising voice, etc.
• Uses graphs or diagrams to facilitate explanation.
• Points out practical applications of concepts.
• Answers students’ questions thoroughly.
• Suggests ways of memorizing complicated ideas.
• Writes key terms on blackboard or overhead screen.
• Explains subject matter in familiar colloquial language.

3. INTERACTION: techniques used to foster students’ class participation.

• Encourages students’ questions and comments during class.

• Avoids direct criticism of students when they make errors.
• Praises students for good ideas.
• Asks questions of individual students.
• Asks questions of class as a whole.
• Incorporates students’ ideas into presentation.
• Presents challenging, thought-provoking ideas.
• Uses a variety of media and activities in class.
• Asks rhetorical questions.
• Listens and responds to students’ contributions and learning.

4. ORGANIZATION: ways of organizing or structuring subject matter.

• Uses headings and subheadings to organize presentation.

• Puts outline on blackboard or overhead screen.
• Clearly indicates transition from one topic to the next.
• Gives preliminary overview at beginning of class.
• Explains how each topic fits into the course as a whole.
• Begins class with a review of topics covered last time.
• Periodically summarizes points previously made.
 117

5. PACING: rate of information presentation, efficient use of time.

• Digresses rarely from major theme.

• Covers the important material in class sessions.
• Asks and confirms if students understand before proceeding to next topic.
• Sticks to the point in answering students’ questions.

6. DISCLOSURE: explicitness concerning course requirements and grading criteria.

• Advises students on how to prepare for tests or exams.

• Provides sample exam questions.
• Tells students exactly what is expected of them on tests, essays, or assignments.
• States objectives of each meeting.
• Reminds students of test dates or assignment deadlines.
• States objectives of course as a whole.

7. SPEECH: characteristics of voice relevant to classroom teaching.

• Speaks at appropriate volume.

• Speaks clearly.
• Speaks at appropriate pace.
• Leaves pauses in speech silent and avoids "um" or "ah."

8. RAPPORT: quality of interpersonal relations between teacher and students.

• Addresses individual students by name (to the extent possible in larger classes).
• Announces availability for consultation outside of class.
• Offers to help students with problems.
• Shows tolerance of other points of view.
• Talks with students before or after class.
• Acknowledges diversity in learners and their culture.

9. RELEVANCE: bridges made between course content, processes, and the world.

• Provides broad (holistic) context for specific learning concepts and skills.
• Integrates materials (examples, cases, simulations) from "real world."
• Bridges specific learning concepts and skills to learners’ experiences.
• Provides learners with access to external sources and experts to validate learning.
• Provides opportunities for learners to apply learning to external world.
• Provides opportunities for learners to bring external learning into the curriculum.

10. LEARNER CENTERED: focuses squarely on student learning and mastery.

• Focuses on learning outcomes and growth, not content taught.

• Pre/during/post assessments used to ensure learning.
• Instructor elicits student discovery and construction of knowledge.
• Learners have some control over learning process.
• Active, collaborative, and cooperative learning favored over passive learning.
• Instructors are primarily designers and coaches.
 118

• Instructors and learners work in teams where appropriate.

• Learners are empowered to take over their own learning.
• Motivates learners by supporting their self-efficacy – ability to succeed.

11. FLEXIBILITY: openness to change and diverse ways of looking and approaching material appropriate
to discipline.

• Teaching appeals to different learning styles.

• Awareness of inter-subjective construction of knowledge.
• Appreciation of multiple perspectives and intellectual curiosity.
• Willingness to "give" responsibility of learning to learners where appropriate.
•

12. LEADERSHIP: models civil behavior, intellectual rigor, and respect for diversity.

• Models and requires a learner’s behavior that supports teaching and learning.
• Models intellectual engagement with ideas, concepts and materials.
• Provides intellectual challenge for all levels of learner abilities.
• Demonstrates respect for diversity and requires similar respect in classroom.

Source: Saunders, P. (1999). Characteristics of effective teaching. Retrieved April 6, 2003, from
http://www.wmich.edu/teachlearn/new/char_effect_tch.html
 119

APPENDIX H. STANDARDS FOR TECHNOLOGY COMPETENCE

Science

6th - Standard 7.b: Select and use appropriate tools and technology (including calculators, computers,
balances, spring scales, microscopes, and binoculars) to perform tests, collect data, and display data.

7th - Standard 7.b: Use a variety of print and electronic resources (including the World Wide Web) to
collect information and evidence as part of a research project.

Language Arts: (Research and Technology Standards)

6th - Standard 1.4: Use organizational features of electronic text (e.g. bulletin boards, databases, keyword
searches, e-mail addresses) to locate information.
Standard 1.5: Compose documents with appropriate formatting by using word-processing skills and
principles of design.

7th - Standard 1.5: Give credit for both quoted and paraphrased information in a bibliography by using a
consistent and sanctioned format and methodology for citations.
Standard 1.6: Create documents by using word-processing skills and publishing programs; develop simple
databases and spreadsheets to manage information and prepare reports.

8th - Standard 1.4: Plan and conduct multiple-step information searches by using computer networks and
modems.

Mathematics

6th - Standard 1.4: Solve problems manually by using the correct order of operations or by using a
scientific calculator.
Standard 2.0: Students use data samples of a population and describe the characteristics and limitations of
the samples.
Standard 2.4: Use a variety of methods, such as words, numbers, symbols, charts, graphs, tables, diagrams,
and models to explain mathematical reasoning.

Source: San Diego State University. (2006). California standards vs. ISTE standards Retrieved August 2,
2006, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/castandards/index.htm
 120

APPENDIX I. GOOD TEACHING: THE TOP TEN REQUIREMENTS

Good Teaching: The Top Ten Requirements

By Richard Leblanc, York University, Ontario

This article appeared in The Teaching Professor after Professor Leblanc won a Seymous Schulich Award
for Teaching Excellence including a $10,000 cash award. Reprinted here with permission of Professor
Leblanc, October 8, 1998.

One. Good teaching is as much about passion as it is about reason. It's about not only motivating students
to learn, but teaching them how to learn, and doing so in a manner that is relevant, meaningful, and
memorable. It's about caring for your craft, having a passion for it, and conveying that passion to everyone,
most importantly to your students.

Two. Good teaching is about substance and treating students as consumers of knowledge. It's about doing
your best to keep on top of your field, reading sources, inside and outside of your areas of expertise, and
being at the leading edge as often as possible. But knowledge is not confined to scholarly journals. Good
teaching is also about bridging the gap between theory and practice. It's about leaving the ivory tower and
immersing oneself in the field, talking to, consulting with, and assisting practitioners, and liaising with their
communities.

Three. Good teaching is about listening, questioning, being responsive, and remembering that each student
and class is different. It's about eliciting responses and developing the oral communication skills of the
quiet students. It's about pushing students to excel; at the same time, it's about being human, respecting
others, and being professional at all times.

Four. Good teaching is about not always having a fixed agenda and being rigid, but being flexible, fluid,
experimenting, and having the confidence to react and adjust to changing circumstances. It's about getting
only 10 percent of what you wanted to do in a class done and still feeling good. It's about deviating from
the course syllabus or lecture schedule easily when there is more and better learning elsewhere. Good
teaching is about the creative balance between being an authoritarian dictator on the one hand and a
pushover on the other.

Five. Good teaching is also about style. Should good teaching be entertaining? You bet! Does this mean
that it lacks in substance? Not a chance! Effective teaching is not about being locked with both hands glued
to a podium or having your eyes fixated on a slide projector while you drone on. Good teachers work the
room and every student in it. They realize that they are the conductors and the class is the orchestra. All
students play different instruments and at varying proficiencies.

Six. This is very important –good teaching is about humor. It's about being self-deprecating and not taking
yourself too seriously. It's often about making innocuous jokes, mostly at your own expense, so that the ice
breaks and students learn in a more relaxed atmosphere where you, like them, are human with your own
share of faults and shortcomings.

Seven. Good teaching is about caring, nurturing, and developing minds and talents. It's about devoting
time, often invisible, to every student. It's also about the thankless hours of grading, designing or
redesigning courses, and preparing materials to still further enhance instruction.

Eight. Good teaching is supported by strong and visionary leadership, and very tangible institutional
support—resources, personnel, and funds. Good teaching is continually reinforced by an overarching vision
that transcends the entire organization—from full professors to part-time instructors—and is reflected in
what is said, but more importantly by what is done.
 121

Nine. Good teaching is about mentoring between senior and junior faculty, teamwork, and being
recognized and promoted by one's peers. Effective teaching should also be rewarded, and poor teaching
needs to be remediated through training and development programs.

Ten. At the end of the day, good teaching is about having fun, experiencing pleasure and intrinsic rewards
... like locking eyes with a student in the back row and seeing the synapses and neurons connecting,
thoughts being formed, the person becoming better, and a smile cracking across a face as learning all of a
sudden happens. Good teachers practice their craft not for the money or because they have to, but because
they truly enjoy it and because they want to. Good teachers couldn't imagine doing anything else.

Source: Le Blanc, R. (1998). Good teaching. The top ten requirements.

Retrieved August 10, 2006, from
http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/topten.htm
 122

APPENDIX J. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH (TEACHERS)

Project Title: A Study of Best Practices for Teachers and the Effective Integration of Technology into the
K-12 Classroom Environment
Researcher(s): Arman L. Demesa
Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Joshua T. Fischer

Introduction:
You are being asked to take part in a research study being conducted by Arman Demesa, a Student for a
dissertation under the supervision of Dr. Joshua T. Fischer in the Department of Education at CAPELLA
University.

You are being asked to participate because you are an Elementary Teacher who is involved in K-12
Education. There are approximately 2,039 Teachers within the school district, namely Chula Vista
Elementary School District in Chula Vista, California. Please read this form carefully and ask any questions
you may have before deciding whether to participate in the study.

Purpose: To discover whether there are effectual technology programs or academic frameworks to train
Teachers to be strongly competent in technology skills and integrate it into their classrooms to enhance the
student’s learning outcomes. To explore their unique characteristics or best practice in teaching so they can
achieve the most innovative methods in transferring knowledge using technology.

Procedures:
If you agree to be in the study, you will be asked to:
• Fill out and respond to the survey instruments. Upon completion of the document, you will send then it
back to the researcher in prepaid postage envelop. You will be asked to respond to questions about
your experiences and knowledge in technology.

Risks/Benefits:
There are no foreseeable risks involved in participating in this research beyond those experienced in
everyday life.

Confidentiality:
The information gathered from your responses will be confidential and the data will be coded to maintain
the confidentiality of your identity. It will not be released to any third parties.

Voluntary Participation:
Participation in this study is voluntary. If you do not want to be in this study, you do not have to participate.
Even if you decide to participate, you are free not to answer any question or to withdraw from participation
at any time without penalty.

Contacts and Questions:

If you have questions about this research study, please feel free to contact: Arman Demesa via cell phone
(619) 572-2681 or email: ademesa@cox.net

Statement of Consent:
Your signature below indicates that you have read and understood the information provided above, have
had an opportunity to ask questions, and agree to participate in this research study. You will be given a
copy of this form to keep for your records.

____________________________________________ __________________
Participant’s Signature Date
____________________________________________ ___________________
Researcher’s Signature Date
 123

APPENDIX K. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH (PRINCIPALS)

Project Title: A Study of Best Practices for Teachers and the Effective Integration of Technology inside
the K-12 Classroom Environment
Researcher(s): Arman L. Demesa
Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Joshua T. Fischer

Introduction:
You are being asked to take part in a research study being conducted by Arman Demesa, a Student for a
dissertation under the supervision of Dr. Joshua T. Fischer in the Department of Education at CAPELLA
University.

You are being asked to participate because you are a Principal who is involved in K-12 Education. There
are approximately 37 Principals within the school district, namely Chula Vista Elementary School District
in Chula Vista, California.

Please read this form carefully and ask any questions you may have before deciding whether to participate
in the study.

Purpose: To discover whether there are effectual technology programs or academic frameworks to train
Teachers and future Teachers to be strongly competent in technology skills and integrate it into their
classrooms to enhance the student’s learning outcomes. To explore their unique characteristics or best
practice in teaching so they can achieve the most innovative methods in transferring knowledge using
technology. To analyze the significant effects of motivation and learning theories and identify their
importance in the promotion of education among students and scholars.

Procedures:
If you agree to be in the study, you will be asked to:
• Fill out and respond to the survey instruments. You will be asked to respond to questions about your
experiences and knowledge in technology. After you complete the survey instrument, you will then
mail the document in a prepaid postage envelop to the researcher.

Risks/Benefits:
There are no foreseeable risks involved in participating in this research beyond those experienced in
everyday life. The direct benefits to you from participation will be a free copy of the dissertation upon
completion..

Confidentiality:
The information gathered from your responses will be confidential and the data will be coded to maintain
the confidentiality of your identity. It will not be released to any third parties.

Voluntary Participation:
Participation in this study is voluntary. If you do not want to be in this study, you do not have to participate.
Even if you decide to participate, you are free not to answer any question or to withdraw from participation
at any time without penalty.

Contacts and Questions:

If you have questions about this research study, please feel free to contact: Arman Demesa via cell phone
(619) 572-2681 or email: ademesa@cox.net
 124

Statement of Consent:
Your signature below indicates that you have read and understood the information provided above, have
had an opportunity to ask questions, and agree to participate in this research study. You will be given a
copy of this form to keep for your records.
____________________________________________ __________________
Participant’s Signature Date
____________________________________________ ___________________
Researcher’s Signature Date
 125

APPENDIX L. FROM CAMPUS TECHNOLOGY 2008 POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

Speak Up 2007 Student Findings

What do students say is the #1 tech tool or

service that will impact their learning?

Students in Kindergarten thru 12th grade say

the same thing every year:

“Give me a laptop for my personal

use at school and at home”

Source: Evans, J. (2008, July 31). Shootout! Bracing for the Next-Gen Student Wave: Myth or Mandate?
Paper presented at the 15th Annual Education Technology Conference, Boston, MA.
 126

Appendix M. FROM CAMPUS TECHNOLOGY 2008 POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

Speak Up 2007 Student Findings

How students want to use mobile devices

to support learning
• Communications
– Email teachers, classmates
– Access personal websites
• Collaborations
– Projects and calendars
• Creativity
– Create/share documents
• Productivity
– Research, downloads, ed games

Source: Evans, J. (2008, July 31). Shootout! Bracing for the Next-Gen Student Wave: Myth or Mandate?
Paper Pesented at the 15th Annual Education Technology Conference, Boston, MA.