EXPERIENCING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES: HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS’

QUEST TO INTEGRATE TECHNOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM

by

LaSchunn Gonsalves

CAROLYN ROGERS, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

DOUGLAS DEWITT, Ph.D., Committee Member

KEENA RYALS-JENKINS, 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

January 2010
 UMI Number: 3402167

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3402167
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
© LaSchunn Gonsalves, 2010
 Abstract

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to understand the perspective of teachers

and their quest in effectively integrate technology in the curriculum to increase student

achievement after completing the approved technology competency course. During the

last decade, schools have enormously invested in technology to enhance education. As

the thrust of technology in schools have emerged within the schools, teachers are

challenged with infusing technology into the classroom and curriculum to increase

student achievement. As a result of this infusion of technology, teachers are asked to alter

the way they deliver and teach students. Therefore, teachers in Georgia are required to

enhance their technology skills and demonstrate their competency for certification to

ensure teacher quality. One public school system in Georgia requires its teachers to

participate in a state approved district wide technology course or pass a state approved

test. Subsequently, teacher quality is the key to the end result of student achievement.

Hence, as these changes and demands are placed on teachers it is possible that their

perspectives on teaching might influence the way technology is delivered. Many teachers

embrace the idea of bridging 21st century technologies into their classroom and others are

not so welcoming to the thought. Therefore, since students are intrigue and now have

more access to computers than ever before, are teachers using this opportunity to increase

student achievement using these tools as leaders had hoped? This research will examine

the perceptions of teachers on technology integration, including the extent and value of

the skills learned and transferability to the classroom and constraints.

 Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my Father, William Courney Brown (1922 -

1999), and my brother Altonio Chatman (1961-2006) who journey home during my

quest. It is also dedicated to my loving mother Martha Winfrey Brown, my husband Troy

Gonsalves, my sweet daughters Ashley, Alexandria, and Amber, and my dear brother

Dinicious Chatman.

iii
 Acknowledgments

Thank you God!

No words cannot express the gratitude I feel for my family and friends who

supported and encouraged me through this process. I thank God for bringing four friends

into my life that share and believe in the same pursuit of happiness as I. Thank you, my

dear friends Keena Jenkins, Alicia Jordan, Iris Morgan, and Loretta Saunders for that

friendship, tag team support, and for encouraging me to pursue this path. If it was not for

you, completing this would have remained a dream and not have come a reality.

Thank you mom for your guidance, love, picking up, dropping off, and keeping

the kids as often as I needed you to; I Love you. Thank you Troy for understanding and

being patient through this process. Thanks LaVinicia “Angel” Harper, for being my

“drum major”, your words of encouragement is greatly appreciated. Thank you Rhonda

Jones Chatman, my best friend and cheerleader, for listening to me when I needed and

just being there along the way for whatever I needed. Many thanks to Susan Stegall for

thinking of me and passing along pertinent information. Dr. Joyce Morrow, thank you

for offering your assistance from the beginning. Knowing you were there for support if I

needed it meant a lot to me.

I would like to thank my committee: Dr. Carolyn Rogers, my mentor, Dr. Doug

Dewitt, and Dr. Keena Ryals-Jenkins for the guidance and support through this process. I

am deeply grateful of your time and direction.

Thank you to the principals for allowing me in your school and the four

participating teachers for your time, honesty, and sharing of your experiences and

thoughts.

iv
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables vii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 3

Statement of the Problem 6

Purpose of the Study 9

Rationale 10

Research Questions 11

Significance of the Study 12

Definition of Terms 15

Assumptions 16

Limitations 17

Nature of the Study 17

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 17

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 19

Introduction 19

Historical Evolution of Computer Technology 20

Instructional Technology and Student Achievement 21

A Skeptical Review of Technology in Schools 25

Technology Integration 28

Professional Development and Technology 30

v
 Instructional Technology Courses 45

Summary 49

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 51

Introduction 51

Statement of the Problem 51

Research Questions 54

Research Methodology 55

Research Design 56

Population and Sampling Procedures 57

Sources of Data 59

Validity 59

Reliability 61

Data Collection Procedures 62

Data Analysis Procedures 64

Ethical Considerations 65

Summary 66

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 67

Introduction 67

Descriptive Data 68

Data Analysis 71

Results 73

Summary 103

vi
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 105

Introduction 105

Summary of the Study 105

Summary of Findings and Conclusion 106

Recommendations 113

Implications 116

Summary 118

REFERENCES 121

vii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Time Since Taking the Approved Technology Competency Course 68

Table 2. Grade Level Taught 69

Table 3. Years of Teaching Experience 69

Table 4. Use of Technology in Lessons Prior to Course 70

Table 5. Received Additional Training on Integrating Technology 70

Table 6. Data Sources and Research Question Alignment 72

Table 7. Profile of Ideal Technology Integrated Classroom 75

Table 8. Perceptions Regarding the Use of Technology in the Classroom 76

Table 9. Perceived Technological Competency 77

Table 10. Integration of Technology in Classroom vs. Curriculum 78

Table 11. Synthesis of Findings for Research Question 1: Themes 79

Table 12. Use of Technology as Part of an Instructional Lesson 80

Table 13. Student Use of Technology in the Classroom 81

Table 14. Technology in the Classroom to Increase Content Knowledge 82

Table15. Technological in the Classroom for Higher-Order Thinking Skills 83

Table 16. Connect Real-Life Problems and Collaboration through Technology 83

Table 17. Reasons for Using Technology in the Classroom 84

Table 18. Ways in Which Technology was Used in the Classroom 85

Table 19. Level of Proficiency Using Technology Tools and Resources 93

Table 20. Level of Knowledge Using Technology Tools in Lessons 94

Table 21. Technology Competency Expectations 95

Table 22. Experience in the Technology Proficiency Course 96

viii
Table 23. Technology Integration into Classroom Course Effectiveness 97

Table 24. Assistance for Successful Integration of Technology 99

Table 25. Barriers in Integrating Technology into Lesson Plans 100

Table 26. Challenges Integrating Technology into the Curriculum 101

Table 27.Factors Influencing Use of Technology to Enhance Curriculum 102

ix
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Technology is viewed as a catalyst for educational reform in this information age.

As the world depends on the use of technology and computers for its daily operation it

only makes sense for teachers to prepare students to use technology so they can compete

globally. Nonetheless, the world today has become known as “techno-literate” and the

students in K-12 are known as the “net generation.” Furthermore, the former president of

the United States, George Bush, proclaims that American schools can use technology to

ensure that no child is left behind. The U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings

(2007) reminds educators in her remarks that technology is transforming the way children

and adults live and offers tremendous opportunities for education. Educators must realize

that our students are not growing up in the same way we grew up. Children of today take

advantage of IPods, TiVo, and cell phones and use them in ways beyond our imagination.

Therefore, educators must be flexible and agile, tailor instruction, and use more

innovative ways to enhance student achievement through the use of technology (U.S.

Department of Education, 2007). Therefore, it is vital for schools to be on board with

integrating technology into the classroom.

If technology is successfully integrated, lessons will become meaningful which

will result in academic achievement and reform. Whale (2006) found in his study on

technology and teacher evaluations that “it is more certain than ever that the appropriate

use of technology has a positive impact on student achievement” (p. 62). Yepes-Baraya

(2002) defined technology integration as the use of technology to support and enhance
1
achievement of specific teaching and learning goals. Thus, school systems in Georgia are

striving to integrate technology appropriately by providing professional development.

Moreover, Gradwell (2004) shares the findings of anxiety and uncertainty when

teachers are faced with change such as integration of technology. Many teachers are

accustomed to teacher-centered book worksheet style of teaching. Hall and Hord (2001)

adds that implementation of technology is viewed by teachers as a myriad of problems

because there are numerous innovations to learn and use. Teachers are faced with

utilizing technology innovations such as hardware and software and changing their

teaching style to effectively integrate technology (Fullan, 1991). Fullan also asserts that

teachers need support and efficient training to enable them to feel comfortable and

confident to integrate technology into the curriculum.

For eight years now, teachers were challenged to put all the No Child Left Behind

Act (2001) components together to increase student achievement so they can compete

globally upon completing high school. The NCLB act places immense emphasis on the

technology integration component to increase academic achievement for all students. In

Georgia, student achievement is measured in high school by the Georgia High School

Graduation Test. Since 2004, Georgia uses the English Language Arts and Mathematics

scores of the test to measure Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the NCLB

legislation (Georgia Department of Education, 2009).

To support the goal to have highly qualified teachers, in 2001 former Governor

Roy Barnes signed The A Plus Education Reform Act of 2000 which mandate Georgia

teachers to successfully complete the professional development InTech, an aligned NETs

technology integrated model training, for initial or renewal of certification, or

2
demonstrate competency in the ISTE (2000) standards through an alternative Professional

Standard Board approved program. This initiative was a catalyst to enhance student

achievement in Georgia. Thus, several school districts in Georgia received approval to

offer other professional development technology training programs in their county

(Professional Standards Commission). Moreover, since technology and student

achievement are integral parts of our education system, it is important to examine the

perspectives of teachers as they integrate technology into their curriculum.

Background of the Study

The U.S. Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, stated “Testing is part of life” (2004,

p. 1). The passing of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) 2001 has elevated high- stakes

testing, a standardized measurement of student achievement. The high-stakes tests serve

as a way to hold schools accountable for student achievement. Under NCLBA, the

federal government has mandated that states meet Adequate Year of Progress (AYP) as

an indicator of student achievement and the state of Georgia uses high-stakes test as part

of this measurement. In the state of Georgia the high-stake Georgia High School

Graduation Test (GHSGT) is an annual measurable objective for AYP. Thus, the Georgia

school systems are challenged to meet AYP so no sanctions will be placed on them for

not measuring up (Parkes & Stevens, 2003).

In the 21st century, technology has also become part of life. The Commission on

Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) states that, “Nobody today can avoid technology; it

has penetrated every aspect of life from the home to the job. For those unable to use

technology effectively, it appears as if they will face a lifetime of menial work” (p. 13).

3
So as schools sought ways to help students increase academic achievement and to met

AYP, instructional technology implementation emerged as a vital vehicle. Moreover,

NCLBA required states to demonstrate that all students were technologically literate

(U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Therefore, teachers had to learn how to integrate

technology in their teaching practices to assist students with this literacy.

A study conducted by National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES),

revealed that teacher professional development is a key factor in preparing teachers to use

educational technology (NCES, 2006). The data indicated that although 99% of public

school teachers have access to computers they need proper preparation and training.

Even though numerous studies report the positive impact instructional technology has on

student achievement, the U.S. Department of Education recognize that having access is

not enough to accomplish the goal of NCLB Title D program (Enhancing Education

through Technology, EETT). The U.S. Department of Education acknowledges that

teachers need to know how to integrate technology appropriately for technology to have

an impact on student achievement. Thus, The U.S. Department of Education provides

funds to states for professional development to fulfill the NCLB Title D program.

In the effort to leave no child behind, the federal government has funded billions

of dollars to support the integration of technology in schools to help meet the NCLB

goals. The State of Georgia has also invested billions into technology in education. For

example, Georgia Department of Education has invested in 13 Educational Technology

Training Centers throughout the state to support the commitment to provide teachers with

support and expertise in instructional technology. The Educational Technology Training

4
Centers (ETT) is funded to promote appropriate use of technology integration in

education to positively impact student achievement.

The implementation of Georgia House Bill 1187, The A Plus Education Reform

Act of 2000, has also cost the state a huge amount of money. This bill requires all

teachers to successfully complete Georgia’s special technology requirement. According

to the Council on Basic Education, “technology certification for educators needs to be

part of formal education policy.” (1998, p. 1). Georgia is one of five states that require

this of teachers seeking certification. To support teachers in this effort, the Georgia

Framework for Integrating Technology was developed which is a professional

development course that meets the ISTE NETS and state expectation, for teachers to

complete for certification.

To support House Bill 1187, a team from Georgia Educational Technology

Training Centers developed the Georgia Framework for Integrating Technology (InTech).

This award-winning professional development course, InTech, initially served as the only

course authorized by the school district to satisfy the technology certification

requirement. However, a few years after its commencement two local school districts

adopted alternate professional development course to offer its teacher for state re-

certification of teacher technology competency.

Glennan and Melmed encourage the use of more technology in schools of

America to improve student achievement (1996). In fact, educators are charged with

minimizing the menial work status for American children by providing them with an

adequate integrated technology curriculum across all core disciplines. According to

Marshall (1998) teachers are the key to integration. Therefore, teachers are in need of

5
specialized training in technology. In addition, the effectiveness of technology in

classrooms relies on how successfully teachers incorporate technology in their lessons

(MacArthur & Malouf, 1991). Thus, using technology effectively is the key to making

integration successful. Therefore, educators should be properly prepared to use

technology effectively.

Technology has gain a significant role in education since the induction of NCLB

act of 2001. NCLB asserts that technology must be implemented and used to assist in

narrowing the achievement gap among all students and to prepare students to compete

globally in a technological society. With the strong expectations of the NCLB to integrate

technology, school districts are given the challenge to provide adequate training to

empower teachers to integrate technology. School districts are to provide a course of

action for teachers to meet the new standards and contend with the needs of professional

development to do so. A local school district in Georgia offers Power To Teach and a

different school district offers Models of Integrating Technology (MIT) as courses to

meet technology state requirement.

The NCLBA asserts that technology must be implemented and used to assist in

narrowing the achievement gap among all students and to prepare students to compete

globally in a technological society.

Statement of the Problem

It is not known the perspective of teachers as they integrate technology into the

curriculum to increase student achievement after completing the local school system state

competency technology in-service course in a rural high school. Integration of technology

6
in the classroom is vital in preparing students in this technological society. Teachers have

the opportunity to take advantage of using technology in their classroom to teach, learn,

and more importantly increase student achievement. Thus, choosing the right medium to

help teachers integrate technology in the classroom is more important than the technology

itself. Therefore, the professional development sessions that prepare teachers to integrate

technology in the classroom should be effective. Educational leaders need to make

informed decisions about the most effective models to use when training teachers how to

integrate technology. Thus, with NCLB accountability and AYP, educational leaders are

searching to find ways to promote and enhance student achievement in schools. One of

the greatest benefits of technology is its ability to transform the learning process to

enhance student achievement if it is integrated appropriately (Jones, Valdez,

Nowakowski, & Rasmussen, 1998). Therefore, the professional development choices that

are made by educational leaders to prepare teachers to integrate technology appropriately

for student achievement are crucial.

The U.S. Department of Education (2008) awarded approximately five million

dollars to states in 2007 to enhance education through technology. Schools and districts

spend an abundance of money on technology and technology teacher training because

they expect teachers to transform educational technology by aligning and integrating it

into the curriculum so there can be increasing academic results. However, when teachers

participate in the staff development courses to learn how to effectively integrate

technology to enhance academic achievement and the course is not designed for that

reason it becomes wasted money and time. States value their money and teachers value

their time.

7
 According to the State of Georgia Technology Plan (2008), “the current emphasis

is ensuring that technology is used effectively to create new opportunities for learning

and to promote student achievement, few would argue we are not making progress” (p.

7). The State of Georgia has placed high emphasis and huge amounts of money into

teachers integrating technology and in return expects students to learn and demonstrate

achievement through high-stake test results. For that reason, the professional

development training models in Georgia that meet the certification requirements should

train teachers how to appropriately integrate technology in the classroom. However, in

the effort to train all teachers by the end of 2005- 2006 school year many districts in

Georgia developed their own professional development course as an alternate to the

Georgia Framework InTech course. Therefore, with all the investments that have been

put into educational technology, it is worth investigating whether the local school system

adopted course meets ISTE NET standards, which would deem it appropriate, and if and

how teachers transfer the knowledge to produce technological enhanced lessons for

student achievement.

Furthermore, despite increased access to technology software and hardware,

schools are experiencing difficulty in integrating technology into the curriculum.

According to research, teachers have access to technology but have difficulty applying

the pedagogical practices without participating in a professional development course that

is designed for adult learners (Barnett, 2003). However, the problem occurs even after

they participate in a professional development technology course. Even after completing

professional development teachers do not shift gears to integrate the newly learned

technology skills. The difficulty is that teachers cannot seem to change to a more

8
constructivist approach of teaching. Hall and Hord (2001) noted that teachers may feel a

sense of loss as they change their teaching style which they have became comfortable

with and show resistance when asked to learn a new style, or to change. Thus, the

learning of technology is not difficult for the teacher, rather, its implementation that

requires altering to a more constructivist style of teaching. In addition, the U.S.

Department of Education implemented the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use

Technology PT³ grants to address the need to train teachers; it was found at the college of

Education at Arizona State that many teachers trained within their program were not

using technology in their classroom. If so, the teachers were using primarily for games,

and practice and drill activities instead of analytic and project-oriented lessons (Beckett et

al., 2003). Drill and practice drill activities alone does not lead to student achievement

and unused technologies are a waste of funds spent. Therefore, it is important to examine

teachers’ perceptions and perspectives of integrating technology to provide solutions and

appropriate support for teachers to fully integrate technology into the curriculum for

student achievement. The results of this study will contribute to the body of knowledge of

adopted technology professional development programs in Georgia, present empirical

evidence of is impact, and insight for decision making of educational leaders in

promoting technology integration.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to understand to the perspective of

teachers and their quest in effectively integrate technology in the curriculum to increase

student achievement after completing the approved technology competency course.

9
Darling-Hammond and Berry (1998) note that the factor that matters the most is teacher

quality. For that reason, the key issue in effectively integrating technology is staff

development. A major issue is staff development that lacks on-going professional

development, staff support, built–in evaluations, and an alignment to the schools

curriculum goals. Teachers need these supports to become comfortable.

The teacher environment under investigation is one rural high school where most

teachers have met the state technology requirement for 9-12th grade certification. The

study examine the way teachers use the knowledge gained within two months after

completing a technology staff development course for certification. The researcher

examined their use of technology as they transfer and transform what they learned in the

Power To Teach course to their classroom. This research will attempt to answer questions

regarding teacher preparedness and readiness to integrate technology after completing

staff development courses. Further, this research will examine the perceptions of teachers

on technology integration, including the value and transferability of the skills learned to

the classroom. Finally, this research examines the challenges in integrating technology

effectively in the classroom that enhance opportunities for learning and student

achievement. Recommendations to improve the technology staff development course and

to address the constraints of the teachers may result from the findings.

Rationale

There are many researchers who find that teacher preparedness is the key to

successfully integrating technology into the classroom. Therefore, it suggests that

professional development is the answer to prepare teachers with the tools they need to

10
successfully transform. However, the research is very limited on examining what teachers

do with the skills once they have learned them. Many teachers make the conjecture if a

staff development course is enough to support transfer of skills and transforming

pedagogical practices in their class. Thus, school districts are interested in knowing how

to increase student achievement through the use of technology integration to meet the

goals of their strategic plan.

The rationale for conducting this research was to contribute to the standing body

of knowledge. This research will increase the lore available to school districts, schools,

administrators, professional development developers, and educators. This research

focused on integrating technology professional development courses offered by local

schools districts and student achievement in these school districts. The nature of this

research may aid in the development of new training strategies in the models to increase

its effectiveness on student achievement. It may also aid in assisting the school districts

in evaluating the strategies that are in place, or not, to excel the extent of technology

usage in the curriculum. In addition, this research concurrently attempt to provide

valuable feedback to the school and school district to evaluate the current and continuous

needs of teachers and to evaluate how the professional development course and school

supports could increase the number of teachers transforming to integrated technological

pedagogical practices in the classroom for increase student achievement.

Research Questions

This study brings together a connection of educational policy expectations and the

realities and experiences of high school teachers striving to transform didactic practices

11
to constructivist pedagogies using educational technology. The researcher sought to

better understand the realities and experiences of high school teachers in their quest to

integrate technology in the curriculum; thus, qualitative methods were engaged.

The following research questions guided this study:

1. What are the participants’ perceptions on integrating technology in the

curriculum?

2. Do the participants integrate technology in the curriculum after completing the

professional development technology course offered by the school system?

3. To what extent do high school teachers perceive that their professional

development experience prepared them to integrate technology into their

curriculum?

4. What are the perceived needs identified by the participants to successfully

integrate technology into the curriculum of their classroom?

5. What are some factors that influence the use or non use of technology to

enhance the curriculum, such as motivation, strategies, and barriers?

Significance of the Study

Time, money and efforts are placed on teachers becoming “highly qualified”

defined by NCLB act (2001). Teachers must demonstrate competency in technology to be

“highly qualified.” It is expected for teachers to utilize this competency in their teaching

to ensure that American students receive an interactive, individualized, independent,

interdisciplinary, and intuitive learning experience (Barr, 1990). Investments have been

made in computers and software, training for teachers, text books to be rewritten, and in

12
school support staff to address these former barriers that existed. So, what is the problem

now? Why do teachers continue to have difficulty with adding and using technology with

the curriculum? There are existing studies that address teacher barriers with integrating

technology. However, very limited studies exist on the difficulties that persist after many

of the former barriers have been addressed.

The struggle for teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum after they

have complete the staff development course warranted to provide qualitative data for

administrators, local school districts, and states. The data may aid administrators and

local school districts in developing realistic strategies to enhance the number of teachers

transferring the technology skills learned from professional development to their class.

Teachers in the course are given a suitcase packed with tools that assist them to use basic

technology tools (Microsoft PowerPoint, Word, and Publisher) and yet many teachers

leave the suitcase at the door on their way out. In other words, many teachers are not

taking the learned tools with them. This is significant because technology integration is a

tool that enhances the evaluation and creation of new ideas hence increases student

performance and academic achievement. As a result, since there is a need for more

specific research in this area; the researcher intends to add valuable data for other rural

high schools and school districts.

Furthermore, as a result of NCLBA (2001), states and school districts are

mandated to increase student achievement. This act is to raise accountability of schools

and measure their success by high-stake test results of students. In Georgia, the GHSGT

is employed throughout all high schools to assess student achievement. Accordingly, the

13
members of the Georgia Department of Education began the quest to utilize technology

as vehicle to improve student achievement.

In addition, the NCLBA require students to become technological literate. Thus,

teachers must become technological literate and use technology seamlessly in their

teaching to prepare students to become technological literate. To prepare teachers to

integrate technology, the state of Georgia require teachers to become technological

literate by completing a computer skill competency course. It is expected for teachers to

utilize this competency in their teaching to ensure that American students receive an

interactive, individualized, independent, interdisciplinary, and intuitive learning

experience (Barr, 1990). Thus, school districts seek instructional technology models that

will prepare teachers to appropriately infuse technology into their curriculum.

Accordingly, it is paramount for district leaders to possess knowledge of the

technology standards for teachers and professional development strategies for

instructional technology to decipher which technology professional development course

is best to assist teachers in increasing student achievement in their district. Very limited

studies exist on approved computer competency skill courses in Georgia and its impact

on student achievement.

This study was significant to provide an examination of teachers’ perspectives

and behaviors in trying to integrated technology after completing the technology

professional development course. It reexamined current research on the effectiveness of

technology on student achievement. Importantly, this study examined a learning

environment where teachers transfer attained technology skills and strategies into their

teaching. Additionally, the study will provide useful information for district leaders to

14
examine and compare the components of instructional technology professional

development courses and the how to better support teachers as they try to use technology

as a tool to increase student achievement. It will also be useful in making the best

informed decisions in regards to technology professional development course to adopt to

meet their technology goals. This could potentially lead to enhanced instructional

technology professional development, greater technology integration, and increased

student achievement.

Definition of Terms

The following definition provided clarity for this study:

NCLB. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a legislative reform of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that was signed by President Bush on

January 8, 2002 to set national standards for accountability and student achievement

guidelines for states, school districts and schools in America (U.S. Department of

Education, 2002).

NETS. National Education Technology Standards are written by the International

Society of Technology in Education as a roadmap to advance effective teaching and

learning, and to measure proficiency in technology. These standards are adopted in the

United States and abroad (International Society for Technology in Education, 2008).

Power To Teach. Power to Teach is a technology curriculum designed to help

school districts increase the impact of technology on student learning by training teachers

to focusing on the learning process and not software and hardware. It was designed to

15
accelerate the integration of technology into the curriculum seamlessly and to provide

teachers with ways to sustain the transformation (Bellsouth, 2000).

Professional Development or Staff Development. “Professional development

refers to rigorous and relevant content, strategies, and organizational supports that ensure

the preparation and career-long development of teachers and others whose competence,

expectations and actions influence the teaching and learning” (U.S. Department of

Education, 2000).

Technology integration. Technology integration is the merging of technology

resources and technology-based practices into the daily operation of the classroom. It is

the employment of hardware and software during classroom instruction (Institute of

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2008).

Assumptions

The following list major assumptions that were presented in this study:

1. The participants will respond to the questions and questionnaire with honesty.

2. The participants will understand the research questions asked.

3. The participants will cooperate with the researcher until the end of case study.

4. All the participants received their initial technology training from the staff

development Power To Teach course.

5. Teachers in this case have not used technology in their classroom curriculum.

6. All teachers participated in the staff development course to meet Technology

7. Competency requirement for certification.

8. None of the participating teachers are first year teachers.

16
 Limitations

The following limitations were presented in this study:

1. The gathered data is only appropriate for other high schools that have the

same professional development structure as the high school used in this study.

2. The personal bias of the researcher who is a professional development

instructor of the course being considered.

Nature of the Study

This research study is a qualitative case study. The researcher conducted a case

study that detailed the perceptions of high school teachers that have completed the

technology competency course offered by the local school district and their quest to

integrate technology into their curriculum. The methods this research employed are

interviews, questionnaires, diaries, archival data, and observations. Data collection

included interviews with four high school teachers with more than one year of teaching

experience. The interviews conducted were audio-tape by the researcher. Finally, a daily

journal was maintained throughout the study by the four participating teachers.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter 1 will be an introduction and definition of the problem. The remainder of

the study is divided up as follows: Chapter 2 will review literature that is relevant to

instructional technology professional development courses, technology integration and

competency, teacher preparedness, and student achievement. Chapter 3 will be a detailed

portrayal of the methodology that includes research design, population and sampling,

17
instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and ethical considerations. Chapter 4 will

include presentation, data analysis, and summary. Chapter 5 will summarize the findings

and answers to the questions and recommendations. The estimated time to complete this

study will be one month from the approval date of this dissertation.

18
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The review of literature examines the current research based on instructional

technology in schools, professional development, and the impact technology has on

student academic performance and achievement. The sections addressed are a historical

evolution of computer technology, instructional technology and student achievement, a

skeptical review of technology in the schools, technology integration, professional

development, and adopted instructional technology courses. The first section provided a

brief review of the evolution of earlier instructional technology in the classroom. The

second section reviewed what instructional technology is, its effect on student

achievement, views on effective instructional technology methods, and studies that

correlates the use of technology to student achievement. The third section highlights

concerns of using technology in the classroom and differences in perspective.

Section 4 explored the literature on the integration of technology and how it relates to

teachers learning to integrate technology through professional development. Section 5 in

this chapter takes a close view of the technology standards and professional development

standards as guidelines for teacher technology competency and effective training courses.

Lastly, section 6 focused on the components of the course is adopted by the local school

districts for teachers to meet the teacher technology competency and assist teachers in

increasing test scores.

19
 Historical Evolution of Computer Technology

Technology in education can be identified as early as the 1980s. Up until this

time, instruction was thought to be isolated from technology in the classroom.

1890s -1950s Era-

In the 1890s, commercial films were used first used in schools. During the 1900s

education films were in production. In 1913, Thomas Edison predicted that books would

be obsolete. In 1922, Edison stated that within the near future, it is, “believed that the

motion picture was destined to revolutionize our educational system. Further, in a few

years, technology will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks” (Wise, 1939,

p. 1). Indeed, motion pictures did revolutionize our educational system. The filming

technologies help train our troops for World War II. Between 1941 and 1945, hundreds of

motion pictures and filmstrips were produced by U.S. Office of Education. In fact, such

technological advances led to radio broadcasting, sound recordings, and sound motion

pictures. In the 1920s, the Radio Division of the U.S. Department of Commerce licensed

education stations for classroom broadcasting. By the 1930s, more classrooms had excess

to radio receivers and NBC and CBS began sponsoring universities to air programs like

“School of the Air.”

1950s-1980s Era

Television was introduced to education and the classroom. During the 1940s,

there was a shortage of teachers. So televisions were used to compensate for the shortage.

20
By the mid 1950s, The Ford Foundation endorsed the Fund for the Advancement of

Education for the use television.

Instructional Technology and Student Achievement

Technology has been an impetus for educational reform. Technology is often

thought of as artifacts such as computers, cameras, software, DVD players, IPods, et

cetera. Technology is more than the artifacts, it has been broaden to mean much more.

The United Nations Education, Social and Cultural Organization defines technology as

the “…know –how and creative process that may assist people to utilize tools, resources

and systems to solve problems and to enhance and control over the natural and made

environment in an endeavor to improve the human condition” (UNESCO, 1985, p. 1). It

is the application of knowledge and resources to produce processes and products that

meets the needs of people. Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino (2005) identify

instructional technology as “the process of analyzing learning task and the products that

come from them” (p. 21). In education, technology is a “tool that helps every teacher and

every student master basic skills to develop critical thinking and problem-solving

abilities” (North Carolina Educational Technology Plan, 2004, p. 2). Technology can

help produce schools where every child has an opportunity to succeed (U.S. Department

of Education, 2009). Instructional technology encompasses the encouragement of

developing ideas and techniques and taking action of them to produce products that meet

the human needs.

Thus, technology has become the thrust for educational reform and instructional

technology is the reinforcement of technology being utilize as the nucleus of producing

21
products that satisfy human needs. Even though technologies were found in schools, the

need for instructional technology in schools began in 1958. In 1958 the Russians

launched the first satellite, Sputnik, into orbit. The United States government was eager

to surpass the Russians so U.S. Congress quickly passed the National Defense Education

Act (NDEA). The NDEA was an initiative to improve math and science education in the

United States. The funding from the NDEA provided equipment to schools and

classrooms such as overhead projectors, film strip projectors (Cohen, 2005). By 1964,

school began receiving advanced technologies such as calculators, and television. The

idea was for teachers to use these technologies to create masterminds of larger

technologies. According to Garrison and Anderson, 2003, instructional technology

encompasses theory, practice, and evaluation of technology that construct resources for

students to achieve.

This idea hold true today. Teachers are expected to integrate technology into their

class to shape great problem solvers and critical thinkers that who would further advance

our technologies. The NCLBA requires schools to use technology to increase academic

achievement and is accountable for doing so by meeting Adequate Yearly Progress

(AYP) standards. Consequently, national studies have correlated technology access to

student achievement gains in Language Arts and mathematics. According to the Southern

Regional Education Board (2003), two studies on the technology education program of

West Virginia revealed that technology can lead to academic improvements in writing,

reading, and mathematics.

Educational constructivism, collaborative learning, and technology contribute to

student increase achievement. In a study conducted by Taylor, Castro, and Walls (2004),

22
on integrated technologies across the curriculum, a significant increase was found in the

test results of students that received technology integrated lessons oppose to students who

did not receive technology integrated lessons. Some teachers were given laptops, an

intense training on integrating lessons, and a provided selection of constructivist lesson

plans to use in the classroom. Other teachers were not given these tools to use with their

students. In addition to a significantly increase of their test scores, the students who

received the integrated lessons reported the lessons were motivating and the teachers who

used the tools increased their frequency use of technology (Taylor, Castro, & Walls,

2004).

Another study linked instructional technology to student achievement in

California. The study investigated technology training for teachers and computers use and

the Internet use of students. This correlation and cross tabulation revealed that although

teacher computer usage increased student’s final grades did not. It also showed that

students did not use the computer at home for higher level thinking skills. However, there

was key evidence of student achievement among the twelve states that had state aligned

standards within their reform initiative (Hilton, 2003).

Plowden (2003) examined the results of the ITBS test (Iowa Test of Basic Skills)

to investigate the relationship of computer use and student achievement. The study took

place over a six year period from 1994-2000. During the launch of the study the schools

that were non- technological had higher reading and math scores in secondary schools

than computer technology schools. By the end of the study in 2004, results found that

computer technology schools exceed the scores of the non-technological schools. This

23
finding indicted a positive relationship between student achievement and use of

instructional technology.

In 1998, Wellinsky gathered data to analyze the relationship of fourth and eight

grade student mathematics achievement and computer use. The study also evaluated math

teachers’ preparedness of computers, ways the computer was used by the math teachers

and students, students’ access to computers at home and at school. Wellinsky used data

from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; 1996) to gather the data.

The study reported one tenth of the test increase was related to computer use among

fourth graders and more than a third of grade level increase for eight graders was

contributed to computers use in the classroom. He also used a structural equation

modeling test to evaluate possible various characteristics that relate to the outcomes. He

reported that computer use correlated passively to student achievement if (a) teachers had

adequate training in computer technology; (b) computers were used to construct new

higher-order thinking ideas; and (c) students had adequate access to updated computer

technology.

Nonetheless, there are some studies that show no relationship between

instructional technology and student achievement. In 2003 Karpyn conducted a study of

the relationship between educational technology implementation and student achievement

using the Maryland State Performance Assessment of third, fifth, and eight graders. The

assessment consisted of the studies of mathematics, reading and writing, science, and

social studies. Across the board, teacher and student use were positive contributors of

achievement in all subject matters. Karpyn also controlled for pupil teacher ratio, students

receiving free and reduced lunch, geographic location, and percentage of enrolled

24
minorities. When Karpyn reviewed the findings of the control variables, the results

revealed something quite different. The results revealed that technology use in the

classroom by the students did not have the strongest relationship with student

achievement.

A Skeptical Review of Technology in Schools

Is it worth the extensive conversation and investment? Despite its proven

effectiveness, technology in schools has not been entirely accepted in education. In fact,

some critics suggest that the evidence and research that show computers are effective is

usually lead by the huge computer companies themselves or a representative of the

company. Supposedly, this would show some bias in the research to gain profit from

schools. There is no doubt that the investment in technology has been expensive. Some

critics believe that the cost of maintenance and upgrades of technology deduct from

programs like art and music that have been scientifically proven to be effective with

students. Surprisingly, parents and experts have reasons to believe that computers are a

plug in drug, and a wasted investment. Parents feel children spend too much time on

computers at school and at home and education policy makers rushed into spending on

the technology initiative without asking questions.

Oppenheimer (1997) proclaims that “There is no good evidence that most uses of

computers significantly improve teaching and learning, yet school districts are cutting

programs that enrich children’s live to make room for this dubious nostrum with

credulous and costly enthusiasm” (p. 1). Armstrong and Casement also argue that it is

harmful when schools replace a music program to hire a technology coordinator or turn

25
an art room into a computer lab. Furthermore, some critics have shown that computers

are not helpful in children learning more effectively. In fact, computers have shown to be

harmful instead. Parents complain about children spending too much time at the

computers which can cause eye strain and other physical ailments. In addition, they may

fall prey to predators (Healy, 1998). Another harmful implication is that computers are

accused of dummy down our children. The computers and the Internet tend to promote

superficial thinking and do not encourage critical thinking. Healy (1998) discovered in

the classrooms she visited that the computers in the rooms were wasteful, damaging to

the students’ minds, their language and to their interpersonal skills.

Oppenheimer (2007) argues that the promise of technology in the classroom to

increase academic achievement has been broken after billions of dollars spent and only

marginal gains in achievement are shown. Yet, technologies in many places have

replaced physical education, art, and music which children need. Oppenheimer

provocatively claims that technology in the classrooms is a complete failure. Well,

Oppenheimer also makes an interesting claim that technology is not used as it was

intended to. In other words, neither creative nor critical thinking is allowed to happen

when students use technology for information and not for knowledge. Thus, schools do

not provide opportunity for students to build knowledge with technology. He contends

that computers are muffling teaching priorities such as teaching the fundamentals.

Stoll, a computer guru, has also argued that computers have no place in the

classroom and that simulation of skills is no replacement of real life encounters. Stoll

(1999) raise the concern that computers alter the thinking processes and a lost of thinking

patterns. He notes that if students become dependent on computers for information when

26
they are faced with a problem, students would not be able to recognize the solutions to

other problems on their own. In other words, computers degrade or dummy down

students’ thinking. He further argues that students do not need to be wired in schools to

become successful in the workplace. Adults can learn all the computer skills they need in

two weeks. Stoll (1999) adds that ten to twenty years from now there will still be jobs

that require no computing skills such as gardeners and surgeons. The skeptic’s grand

argument is that schools could spend more money on hiring teachers to reduce class size

instead of on computers.

There are also teachers who are skeptical about using technology in the

classroom. Teachers, like others, are suspicious of new innovations and initiatives and

resistant to change. Usually teachers are skeptical because new innovations are

introduced without proof that it will work. In addition, new trends come in and out of

style and before teachers catch on to the new fad education is on to something new.

Sometimes this skepticism from teachers is fear which can close their mind to new ideas.

However, it is also noted that teachers will adopt technologies when it helps them to do

what they are already doing better in spite of the skepticism they may have (Cuban,

2001).

Although there is some skepticism on the use of computers in the classroom, there

are many arguments that computer makes a positive impact in education. Furthermore,

technology in schools has accelerated over the past decade and because of our

technological societal change it has not slowed down. More so, federal and state policy

makers in education are apparently convinced that computers in schools are worth the

hoopla and investment because they continue to enormously fund technology in schools

27
which also includes professional development despite the criticisms. Hence, teachers

remain with the charge to support the technology initiatives that are set by “No Child Left

Behind” and other state and local requirements. Regardless, of the fears and other

criticisms, certified teachers are encouraged to integrate technology into the classroom. It

is prudent to understand the skepticism and opposition of technology in schools to

provide appropriate technology integration support to teachers who may share similar

skepticism.

Technology Integration

Technology began influencing student learning a few decades ago. Computers

were introduced to schools during the 1970s. By the early 1980s, desktop computers

began to emerge in schools. However, during the past ten years, there has been a thrust

to integrate technology in to the classroom.

According to the Office of Technology Assessment (1995), computers in schools

were placed in separate labs instead of the classroom for student use during the 1980s,

and 1990s. In 1983, there were only an estimated number of 250,000 computers in

classrooms in 50% of schools in the United States. By 2000, computers increased; the

average public school had approximately 110 computers (National Center for Education

Statistics, 2002). The availability of the Internet has also increased. Ninety-nine percent

of schools in the United States were connected to the Internet by 2001. Today, the

number of computers in schools has increased. As a result, the U.S. Department of

Education and local administrator began to focus more on integrating computers into the

classrooms. The Technology in Schools Taskforce (2003) presented this defined

28
technology integration as “the incorporation of technology resources and technology –

based practices into daily routines, work and management of schools” (p. 1).

Technology is viewed as a catalyst for educational reform in this information age.

As the world depends on the use of technology and computers for its daily operation it

only makes sense for teachers to prepare students to use technology so they can compete

globally. Nonetheless, the world today has become known as techno-literat” and the

students in K-12 are known as the net generation. Therefore, schools need to be on board

with integrating technology into the classroom. Yet, many are still investigating reasons

to integrate technology instead of how to (Leu, 2000). Further, Meyer, Steuck, Miller,

Pesthy, and Redmon (1999) found that it is not enough to simply provide schools and

teachers with technology to ensure that technology will be utilized and properly

implemented in the classroom. In addition, the former president of the United States,

George Bush proclaimed,

We cannot assume that our schools will naturally drift toward using technology
effectively. We must commit ourselves to staying the course and making the
changes necessary to reach our goals of educating every child. Together, we can
use technology to ensure that no child is left behind. (p. 1)

If technology is successfully integrated, lessons will become meaningful which

will result in academic achievement and reform. According to Grisham and Wolsey

(2006), knowledge is socially constructed through, environment, peers, and prior

knowledge. This gives recognition to a broader understanding that communication,

collaboration and exploration are important for students to construct meaning. Hillocks

(2006) found that teacher-centered classrooms are a thing of the past and today’s

classroom should be student-centered where they are able to explore, make choices, and

29
work cooperatively and collaboratively in order to share their knowledge. Thus,

technology is the tool for all of these to come together for students in the classroom. In

1996, Bernauer found that technology integration is a way to transform the school and

system by making a positive change of the role of the teacher, and the way curriculum is

planned and decided. Laborde (2007) declared from a study that integrating technology

should be part of teacher’s education. After review of data gathered on integration of

technology in teaching mathematics, Laborde concluded that integrating technology can

have a positive impact of understanding mathematical principles for students.

Professional Development and Technology

During the 1970s, there was a great concern of the effectiveness of professional

development (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989). By the late seventies there were few

research found on staff development because most of the literature was descriptive and

did not mention professional development (Showers, Joyce, Rolheiser-Bennett, 1987). A

few years later in the 1980s, professional development became the spotlight of

workshops, articles, conferences and research (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989).

By the 1990s, the focus of professional development included technology.

Initially, professional development courses were stand alone courses that taught computer

hardware. This posed a problem because teachers were not able to infuse the training of

computers into their teaching. Then during the mid 1990s, courses began to teach of

software applications to teachers. This was also problematic because different schools

had different software installed, and or the software did not relate to their subject matter

(Reinen & Plomp, 1993). In 1999, the NCES (National Center for Education Statistics)

30
surveyed public school teachers and reported only 10% of teachers felt “very well

prepared” (NCES, 2000, p.2). Today, schools are finding ways to integrate technology

into their curriculum to enhance student learning and increase student test scores

(Schaffer & Richardson, 2004).

Teachers are in need of instructional development courses that emphasize

teaching with technology and not about technology (Schaffer & Richardson). The need

for integration technology in the curriculum advances the commitment of NCLB by

requiring school systems to provide professional development for integrating technology

and curriculum development with research-based practices. In fact, states could lose

federal funding if technology plans does not include opportunities for professional

growth in integrating technology (NCLB, 2002). Additionally, teachers in the state of

Georgia must demonstrate satisfactory proficiency in computer skills to receive

certification and recertification to teach. The Georgia Technology plan includes avenues

to meet this computer competency through professional development which also meets

the NCLB requirement for states.

Moreover, technology is the vehicle of enhancing and enriching learning

opportunities and is not an end in itself. Its value is when one knows how to utilize it to

teach and learn. The Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2001 states that

the purpose and goal is “to enhance the ongoing professional development of teachers,

principals, and administrators by providing constant access to training and updated

research in teaching and learning through electronic means” (p. 1). Ansell and Park

(2003) recognize that students’ computer use is increasing while teachers need training.

Moreover, “training will help teachers to use technology more efficiently in the

31
classroom” (Ansell & Park, p. 44). Apparently, the 25% of funds allocated for technology

went towards programs and software and not professional development. Furthermore, the

article of Ansell and Park revealed that teachers now realize how important the need for

more professional development opportunities are for them to effectively integrate

technology in their teaching.

In addition, studies suggested that veteran teachers may have little to no

computer technology training and may require more time and support to acquire the

required computer skills than novice teachers. Furthermore, computer technology is used

in isolated activities rather than in curriculum (Lippman, 1997). Teachers are the key in

integration and they are in need of specialized training in technology (Marshall, 1988).

Therefore, teacher attitude and opportunity are important in the success of integration of

technology in the curriculum. It is imperative for teachers to learn how to use computer

technology and the school systems to make every effort to plan for training and support.

Additionally, if technology is to have a lasting impact upon our society and the teaching

of students, pre and post staff development is necessary to support the level of technology

among teachers and administrators. Thus, the NCLB act financially supports this effort.

American parents and educators understand that teachers who are knowledgeable,

caring, and have a repertoire of strategies and skills are essential to schools of excellence.

“What teachers know and do is the most important influence on what students learn”

(What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future, 1996, p. 6). Moreover, students

cannot elevate their level of academic achievement until teacher’s skills become more

effective in the classroom (Carmichael, 1992).Therefore, it is important to improve the

knowledge of the teachers and provide professional development opportunities for

32
teachers to learn how to facilitate student learning in order to improve the quality of

academic in schools.

Furthermore, it is important for teachers to have opportunities for staff

development to learn current trends, new innovative strategies, and methods to add to

their repertoire. Sparks states that professional development is “a means to an end rather

than an end itself; it helps educators close the gap between current practices and practices

needed to achieve the desired outcomes” (A New Vision for Staff Development, 1997).

According to the 1996 report, “What Matters Most: Teaching For America’s Future”

professional development programs should consciously examine new curriculum

frameworks and analyze what is important to be learned and develop strategies that will

effectively help teachers learn to teach what is needed. This helps prepare teachers to

meet standards that are set and meet the need if students.

Some important known facts about professional development are; teachers need to

continue education to become and remain skilled, professional development increases

teacher knowledge and improves student learning, and it is crucial to the positive

improvements of schools (Rollins, 2006). Nonetheless, teachers, unlike other

professionals, improve their knowledge in isolation. Therefore, the teacher’s learning is

usually disconnected from what is needed for school, state or national standards (Rollins,

2006). Hence, in order for technology integration to effectively improve student

achievement, teachers must learn when to use technology, which tools to use, and the

purpose of using that technology inclusive with theories of learning, instruction, and

assessment.

33
 Nonetheless, with the height of recognition of the importance of professional

development, there have been numerous of studies that show that teacher professional

development is inadequate (Ansell & Park, 2003). Some yield that the deficiency is due

to too little hours of professional development. Subsequently, some school systems have

increased its number of in-service opportunities but have not evaluated the quality of

them (Fishman, Best, Marx & Tal, 2001). There is a correlation between student

achievement and high quality professional development. Sparks (2002) states that high

quality professional development opportunities are those that are meaningful and

relevant, and have longer contact hours and a follow-up.

According to Guskey (2000), professional development must be on-going to

effectively integrate technology into the curriculum. Teachers need additional

encouragement beyond a 1-2 day workshop to integrate the learned technology. In

addition, high quality professional development opportunities are that which afford

teachers access to new technologies to teach, learn, and support collaboration among

colleagues, community, and students (Sparks, 2002). Therefore, when professional

development is implemented without using these guidelines it is thought to be inadequate

and ineffective toward student achievement and technology integration.

Other components of high quality professional development include having clear

goals that are measurable and aligned with school district goals (Sparks, 1994). Picciano

(1998) argues that effective professional development for implementing technology

should be planned and provided opportunities to understand the connection between

educational technologies and the curriculum. Evidence that instructional professional

development has an impact in the classroom is found in the study by Ray (2001), where

34
he investigated teachers who participated in technology training at the learning center.

The study was to find out if the teachers would integrate technology after completing the

training. The training was reported as effective and had exemplifying characteristics.

Twelve secondary teachers were selected for the study. After interviews, surveys, and

observations the study revealed that all twelve teachers used the skills they learned from

the training one way or another in their class. However, only ten of the twelve used the

skills learned to integrate their lessons (Ray).

Teacher Preparedness

Technologies are not meaningful and being used to its full potential because

teachers do not know how to incorporate it into the lesson. “Too many educators lack the

procedural knowledge or support required to integrate technology effectively into

teaching and learning” (NCREL, 2000, p. 1). Teachers realize computers can serve as a

baby sitting tool while they themselves work on other school related duties and

responsibilities. Teachers are inundated with demands with little time to complete task.

Teachers are overwhelmed with having to prepare for more than one subject,

communicate with parents, are required to learn new instructional strategies, to deal with

diversity in the classroom, and also learn new technologies.

The National Center for Education Statistics indicated from a study conducted by

the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS, 1999) that one third of teachers feel prepared

and new teachers felt more comfortable using technology than veteran teachers (Smerdon

et. Al, 2000). Parsad and Jones (2005) reported from another nationwide survey that

again one third of teachers felt well prepared to integrate educational technology. Thus,

35
this survey indicated that 38% of schools that offered professional development only had

1% to 25% of their teachers attend sessions within 12 months of the survey. Yet, in 2003

student to computer ratio increased from 12.1:1 to 4.4:1 (Parsad & Jones, 2005).

Therefore, it is important for school systems to recognize the need for teachers to know

and understand how to integrate technology as a tool for instruction and not just as a

means to expedite daily chores.

Furthermore, school districts are challenged with veteran teachers who have

taught without the reference of information technologies throughout their career, who are

frustrated of integrating technology in the classroom, and who are just trying to avoid and

hang on for a few more years. Likewise, many new and seasoned teachers in Georgia

have skated through a basic technology requirement course to meet the criteria for

certification or renewal certification.

Nonetheless, high quality teachers are a direct link to student achievement.

Darling-Hammond (1997) conducted a study that indicated 40% of the variance in

students’ reading and math scores were directly related to teacher expertise. In addition,

in a separate study, Darling-Hammond et al, (2005) found that certified teachers were

more effective in student achievement than non-certified teachers. Thus, their work

suggest that certified and non-certified teachers would benefit from effective professional

development to enhance teachers’ knowledge and skills to become or remain highly

qualified and to assist in enhancing students’ academic achievement.

Furthermore, Ertmer (1999) suggest addressing the top layer of obstacles

presented among teachers as to why they are not embracing technology. Funding from

many initiatives and NCLB has minimized the barriers of infrastructure, software,

36
hardware, and assess. However, the proficiency of teacher use of technology has not been

successfully reduced to bridge the gap (Ertmer). The layer that is necessary to uncover is

the proficiency of the teacher. Once a teacher feels competent in technology they will be

more willing to embrace technology in their pedagogical practices and increase self-

efficacy. Thus, the inability to assimilate to the integration of technology pedagogies fails

the thrust of academic achievement in the 21st century.

“Efficacy relates to perceived value, worthiness and effectiveness. As such, self-

efficacy is the sum of perceived beliefs that people hold about their ability to behave in

productive ways, to have a beneficial influence in their life” (Schmidt, 2006, p. 3). Thus,

teacher’s personal life is important to consider because it has an influence on the

student’s in which they serve in the classroom. Orstein (1995) asserts that teachers’

ability to integrate technology in their instruction is dependent upon the teacher’s comfort

level, technologies ability, and is highly dependent upon teachers’ self-efficacy. Bandura

(1996) indicates four ways to strengthen self-efficacy: (a) mastery of experiences, (b)

explicit modeling, (c) social persuasion, and (d) physical and emotional arousal.

There are technology staff development courses in many school districts that are

offered because of the NCLB technology plan. However, the courses generally teach

software skills rather than concepts and lack scaffolding which leaves the application of

how to integrate technology up to the learner. In addition, many of the courses do not

adhere to the idea that novice adult learners need as much attention and assistance as

children does from competent instructors (Vygotsky, 1978). Carrier and Glenn (1991)

felt that novice teachers need individualized instruction based on experience with

37
computers. They suggest a two-level approach for instructional technology courses; a

basic and advance class.

More so, instructional professional development courses lack legitimate

peripheral participation through apprenticeship as suggested by Lave and Wenger (1991).

Apprenticeship provides modeling, and social opportunities to construct knowledge in

real world structure that promotes proficiency and self-efficacy. Additionally, Firek

(2003) describes today’s state of teacher preparedness to integrate technology:

Combine a shop-class, tools-based approach with the unbridled fervor of techno-

utopian prophets, and you’ve got the milieu of many of today’s Ed-tech
classroom. They spend each week learning a new program, but they never learn to
apply it in their own fields. (p. 597)

Cory (1990) attributes the gap of technology literate and non-literate teachers to

“inadequate district-and school-level leadership in using instructional technology” (p.

17). Rogers (1995) clearly points out that teachers may have access to technology and

even high levels of proficiency using technology, but unless they believe that technology

use can enhance practice, they are unlikely to act and may even actively resist an

innovation.

Accordingly, studies have shown that majority of teachers feel that technology

improve standardized test, yet also feel that they are not adequately trained to maximize

technology in their classroom. A “Teachers Talk Tech” survey conducted by CDW

Government Inc. in 2004 surveyed 1,012 teachers from elementary, middle, and high

schools. The findings from the survey revealed three priority concerns from teachers that

impact long-term success of technology integration in the classroom. From the

interviews, the top three concerns were (a) additional training for teachers, (b) added

38
computer access for their students, and (c) advance technology that is appropriate for the

classroom. Eight out of ten teachers stated that they wanted more technology training.

The study also revealed that approximately half of teachers in America rely on traditional

workshops and classes for technology integration training (Rather, 2004).

Appropriate technology use in schools should consist of embedded technology

that enhance lessons and not lessons about technology. In 1998 the Panel on Educational

Technology began identifying promising and exemplary integration programs to share

throughout the education arena. The panel looked for models of technology integration

that were significant, effective, and useful to the community of education. Within theses

criteria of the models the panel sought to find products or lessons that fostered student-

centered learning, project-based learning, and integrate real world issues and practice

(Panel on Educational Technology, 2000). Visualize this fun math unit plan as an

example. The teacher uses a PowerPoint presentation to introduce and discuss what

communicating mathematically means. The students are then asked to choreograph dance

moves to demonstrate linear equations. The students use graph calculators to create

corresponding figures and graphs. The students are to put nine linear choreographed

poses to music for videotape. The students finally place the screen shots of the equations,

graphs, and dance together for a visual electronic presentation. “Technology enables

users to explore topics more in-depth and in more interactive ways” (Garofalo, Drier,

Harper & Timmerman, 2000, p. 1). Technology that is infused appropriately is more

meaningful; thus, students in this lesson would most likely remember what they learned

about linear equations. Most importantly, teachers must be properly trained on how to

develop such lessons in their classrooms.

39
 The National Education Technology Plan (2005) provided action steps for states

and school districts to improve teacher training. The plans recommend states and districts

to: (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 increase

technology resources; (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, drive daily decisions, and design instructional interventions to customize

instruction for every student’s unique needs.

International Society for Technology in Education

The primary goal of Enhancing Education Through Technology-Part D of the

NCLBA is to “improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in

elementary schools and secondary schools” (p. 1). The National Education Technology

Plan has seven action steps to achieve the primary goal. The third action step is to

Improve Teacher Training (described in previous section). The Enhancing Education

Through Technology awards grants for technology and requires recipients to utilize 25%

of these funds for professional development. Thus, the federal funding for professional

development led to questions concerning what is appropriate instructional technology

training because there were no set comprehensive criteria to decipher. Therefore, the U.S.

Department of Education supported The International Society of Technology in

Education (ISTE).

40
 In the late 1990s there remained a lack of guidelines and standards that guided

inclusion of technology within the education programs for teachers. The International

Society of Technology in Education (ISTE) saw a need to prepare tomorrows teachers

and established the most esteemed standards for technology. Forty-nine of fifty-one states

have adopted or referenced the ISTE National Educational Technology Standards

(NETS). In 1996, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)

adopted the ISTE Foundation Standards Performance Indicators. Theses performance

indicators became the NCATE standards for initial teacher preparation programs. The

standards are used in educational programs that endorse computer literacy, master

programs of computing and technology, and computer science programs. The NETS

standards describe skills that are necessary for all teachers to successfully infuse

technology in their instruction. These standards provide a framework for planning

technology based activities for students to achieve success in becoming technology

literate.

Preparing for Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT 3), a U.S.

Department of Education grant, enabled NETS to gather feedback from groups of

teachers to define what teachers should know about technology and able to do with it.

Recently, at the National Educational Computing Conference (NECC) in San Antonio,

Texas, ISTE unveiled the second edition of National Educational Technology Standards

(NETS) technology standards for teachers. The first edition of standards introduced in

2000, focused on what teachers should know about technology and how to use

technology. The first edition of standards is reviewed in this section as a guide to

41
compare and contrast the instructional technology models currently used by two local

school districts.

The new 2008 set of standards second edition address what the teachers should

know about technology and what they should be able to do with it to enhance students’

ability to learn and live in an increasing digital society. Both sets of standards are

reviewed due to the fact that existing educational programs continue to operate using the

first edition of NETs-T introduced in 2000. The adoption of the new standards has not yet

filtered the in-service and educational programs because the standards are very new and

require time to rejuvenate programs using the second edition. The new set of standards

adopted only a few months ago are briefly reviewed to understand the progressive

movement of technology and the new direction and expectations of teachers and students

learning in this digital world.

NETS Standards

There are six ISTE NETS (2000) standards in the first edition that all teachers

seeking certification and classroom teachers should be competent. Thus, technology in-

service programs that endorse certification must meet these standards. The NETS

standards are important for review in this paper as it provides criteria for the instructional

models which educational organizations adopt. It also provides a guideline to evaluate

and critique components of technology programs and models. The first NETS standard is

Technology Operations and Concepts where teachers demonstrate a sound understanding

of technology operations and concepts. Teachers are to demonstrate introductory

knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts related to technology (as described in

42
the ISTE National Education Technology Standards for Students), and demonstrate

continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and

emerging technologies.

The second NETS standard is Planning and Designing Learning Environments

and Experiences where teachers plan and design effective learning environments and

experiences supported by technology. Teachers are supposed to design developmentally

appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies

to support the diverse needs of learners; apply current research on teaching and learning

with technology when planning learning environments and experiences; identify and

locate technology resources and evaluate them for accuracy and suitability; plan for the

management of technology resources within the context of learning activities; and plan

strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced environment.

The third NETS standard is Productivity and Professional Practice. In this

standard, teachers use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice.

Teachers are to use technology resources to engage in ongoing professional development

and lifelong learning; continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make

informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning; apply

technology to increase productivity; and use technology to communicate and collaborate

with peers, parents, and the larger community in order to nurture student learning.

Standard 4 is Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum. Teachers implement

curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to

maximize student learning. Teachers are to facilitate technology-enhanced experiences

that address content standards and student technology standards; use technology to

43
support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students; apply

technology to develop students' higher order skills and creativity; and manage student

learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment. Net Standard 5 is Assessment

and Evaluation of Technology Tools. Teachers apply technology to facilitate a variety of

effective assessment and evaluation strategies. Teachers are suppose to apply technology

in assessing student learning of subject matter using a variety of assessment techniques;

use technology resources to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate

findings to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning; and apply

multiple methods of evaluation to determine students' appropriate use of technology

resources for learning, communication, and productivity. NET Standard 6 is social,

ethical, legal, and human issues. Teachers understand the social, ethical, cultural, human

and legal issues surrounding the use of technology in PK-12 schools and apply those

principles in practice. Teachers are to model and teach legal and ethical practice related

to technology use; apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with

diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities; identify and use technology resources

that affirm diversity; promote safe and healthy use of technology resources; and facilitate

equitable access to technology resources for all students.

There are five new NETS (2009) standards that all teachers seeking certification

and classroom teachers should be competent. In the near future, technology in-service

programs that endorse certification must meet these standards. The first NETS (2009)

standard is to Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity. NETS Standard 2 is

to Design, Develop and Evaluate Authentic Learning Experiences (ISTE, 2009).

Category 3 of the new standards encourages teachers to model current technologies in

44
their lessons to locate information, analyze information, and to evaluate the information

found (ISTE, 2009). In Standard 4 of the new standards teachers proficiently “advocate,

model, and teach safe, legal, and ethical use of technology and information, including

copyright, privacy issues, and security, data, and information” (NETS, 2009). The last

new NETS (2009) Standard 5 supports professional development. In the growing digital

society, ISTE find that it is important for teachers to continue to build their skills in

technology. Category 5 encourages teachers to continue to develop participation in world

communities and local communities to share ideas, and infuse appropriate technologies to

exhibit technology leadership. According to ISTE (2008), teachers should assist in

sustaining a local and global learning community in their building, promote the

technological skills in other educators, and evaluate current research of technology tools

that support teaching and learning.

The NETS standards are important for review in this paper as it provides criteria

for the instructional models which educational organizations adopt. It also provides a

guideline to evaluate and critique components of technology programs and models. The

one key in preparing teachers to integrate technology in the classroom is the course

content; but more importantly, it is the instructional methodology (NCATE, 1997). The

U.S. Congress: Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1995) suggest in-service

technology courses include (a) course instructor modeling the use of the computer in a

classroom, (b) providing instructional strategies for integration of technology into the

curriculum, (c) assisting the in-service teacher in the development of technology-based

lesson plans, and (d) providing opportunities for teachers to observe and work hands on

with students using computers in a classroom environment.

45
 Instructional Technology Courses

Given all the demands teachers are faced with daily, teachers want guidance on

how to integrate. According to Johnson and Liu (2000), few teachers know how to

expand integration of technology in the classroom. In addition, Johnson and Liu suggest

that teachers are lacking a model that they can use to guide them through the necessary

changes to be successful in integrating technology into their classroom. A study

conducted by Ingram (1992) revealed that most teacher education programs focus on

application of software and evaluation of educational software and not on how to

integrate computer technology into the curricular. Accordingly, there is a need to provide

teachers with adequate technology in-service (staff development) preparation courses that

include modeling. Research has also shown that stand alone courses without ongoing

support often fail the needs of teachers. However, modeling and on going mentoring

models show positive results in professional development (Beisser, 2000).

The National Educational Technology Standards are provided as a framework for

states and educators to ensure education programs are adequate. Georgia State Board of

Education instituted the Georgia Framework of Integrating Technology (InTech) which

meets the NETS first edition standards. This researched and constructivist- based

technology training program was a state wide initiative in 1998 (Georgia Department of

Education, 2009). This framework is a comprehensive model for instructional

technology professional development courses. This exemplary framework has been

adopted by other states including Louisiana (State of Louisiana Department of Education,

2000).

46
 None the less, as exemplary as InTech, many school districts in Georgia choose to

use an alternative instructional technology course to prepare their teachers to integrate

technology. These courses are approved by the professional standards commission and

are aligned with the ISTE standards (Georgia Technology Standards for Educators,

2009). One school district employs Power To Teach (School District A) and a nearby

school district employs Models for Integrating Technology (MIT) (School District B).

The next section will closely review these instructional technology courses to analyze its

components. The research is limited on these delivery methods and there is limited

empirical research found of the effectiveness of neither of these courses on student

achievement. Therefore, this study will review the facts that are found.

Power To Teach

The Power To Teach course is an in-service course that the school district offers

to teachers to meet the state requirement. In 1998, the formerly known BellSouth

Foundation, gathered together with the Institute of Computer Technology and Hewlett-

Packard to develop curriculum and materials to support the project. In 1999, the

BellSouth Foundation initiated a $10 million dollar grant program, edu3pwr. Power To

Teach was the one component of three that was for teachers to learn technology to use in

the classroom (BellSouth Foundation, 1999). This curriculum was designed to train

teachers to effectively integrate technology into their existing curriculum to enhance

student’s learning and achievement. Teachers completing the course were expected to be

more comfortable with technology and equipped with the tools to effectively integrate

technology. School District A participated in this two-year initiative and received grant

47
monies to offer this course to teachers. Subsequently in 2000, the district bought the

rights to the content of the program and gained approval from the state to use as an

alternate to InTech for teacher certification. Since, the curriculum has been used in

professional development to prepare teacher to integrate technology. According the

Georgia Technology Plan 2002-2007, this program is researched based and has been

found to be an effective tool for enhancing technology integration in the classroom.

During the two-year initiative, the Taking a Good Look At Instructional

Technology (TAGLIT) tool was used to collect data. The data revealed that teachers

trained in the course Power To Teach showed a significant gain in technology skills and

the participating school districts increased their expenditures in professional

development. Additionally, from 2000 to 2002 the number of high school and middle

school teachers integrating technology in the classroom increased from 49% to 79%

(BellSouth, 2003).

The Power To Teach course is a 10-day or 5-day course that requires 40 hours of

face-to-face training time and 10 hours of online collaboration on Black Board.

Participating teachers must attend each session to obtain certificate of completion. In

addition to attending each session, teachers are required to create a lesson/unit plan that

integrates the Microsoft programs into their curriculum. During each session, class

activities are planned to allow practice and teacher observation. In addition, pedagogical

topics are discussed throughout the sessions. Teachers’ unit plan must include teacher

and student focused assignments. Unlike the MIT design, this course does not provide

any displayable artifact for alignment with the State or Federal Technology plan.

48
 In Power To Teach, each participant creates a technology-connected lesson plan.

The lesson plans created are based on the software and instructional focus that is

introduced in that particular module. Participating teachers must also include student

samples with each module and implemented lesson plan. This serves as an On the Job

Performance assessment. In addition, teachers are required to keep these portfolios for a

period of three years. Lastly, for each module there is an On The Job Performance Self

Assessment check off sheet. This assessment clearly displays the alignment of the State

of Georgia Technology Plan with the goals of each module.

Module 1 of this course is Technology Operations and Concepts. This module

introduces teachers to the basic usage of computers and trouble shooting. In addition, this

module allows teachers to participate in a pre/post assessment of basic skills. The Power

To Teach Course does not include a pre-assessment of skills. The goal of Module 1 is to

demonstrate a continual growth in technology knowledge and basic skills (MIT, 2009).

Students learn best when they are actively engaged regardless of the subject

matter (Goodsell, Maher, Tinto, & Associates, 1992). Power To Teach, although it was

adopted from a two-year initiative, lacks modeling and the inclusion of techniques that

are proven to be effective in the classroom such as cooperative learning, and self-

reflection. Power to Teach also lacks follow-up support. Other known courses such as

MIT require teachers to implement the lessons between modules to reflect on outcomes

and receive support from the facilitator. Such courses have cooperative and collaborative

practices which are modeled through the activities and expected to be part of their

lessons. Modeling is a component of appropriate instructional technology training. The

Power To Teach course does not allow these experiences. Teachers in the Power To

49
Teacher course create a lesson plan that is expected to be use after they complete the

course.

Summary

The technology integration literature indicated that teachers’ perceptions and self

efficacy influence their decisions to use and adopt technology in the classroom. If

teachers lack self efficacy they are less likely to infuse technology in the curriculum. The

literature reflected that technology requires from teachers extra time to plan and a

willingness to shift from a teacher-centered classroom to a student-centered classroom.

Thus, professional development can identify and address the negative perceptions and

barriers teachers may have that would hinder them from using technology.

The literature review also revealed that for students to garner the benefits of

technology usage in the classroom and curriculum teachers must become computer

literate. Teachers must be supported in their efforts to integrate technology into the

curriculum by the federal, state, local school systems and building leaders. Furthermore,

studies show that when teachers are given the proper technology training they infuse

technology resulting in increased student achievement. According to the literature, when

teachers are not adequately trained there is a greater change that the machines sit idle in

the classrooms or students use for recreational purposes.

The review of literature establishes that technology increases student achievement

and that teachers are using technology for various reasons. None the less, many teachers

have participated in a technology professional development course; however,

implementing what they have learned in professional development into their classroom is

50
difficult for many teachers. Even after all the millions that have been spent on technology

integration, teachers find it difficult for many reasons; inadequate training, lack of

planning time, hardware, and technical support. If teachers are to use technology as it was

intended (enhance higher level thinking skills), then they must receive support on all

levels of leadership.

51
 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This study utilized a qualitative research methodology. The process was outlined

to describe the methodology used to collect, analyze, and interpret data. The data

collected was analyzed in an effort to understand to what extent teachers transfer skills

learned in a staff development technology course to effectively integrate technology in

the classroom to increase student achievement. Qualitative naturalistic methodology was

the selected design used for this study in an effort to study the daily activity on the quest

to integrate technology in the classroom. This approach was used to elaborate

descriptions of interactions, perceptions, voices, and struggles. Questions were selected

that provided answers that illustrate the barriers the participants encountered attempting

to integrate technology after completing the course.

Statement of the Problem

It was not known to what extent teachers integrated technology into the

curriculum to increase student achievement after completing the local school system’s

state competency technology in-service course in a rural high school. Integration of

technology in the classroom was vital in preparing students in this technological society.

Teachers had the opportunity to take advantage of technology usage in their classroom to

teach, learn, and more importantly increase student achievement. Thus, choosing the right

medium to help teachers integrate technology in the classroom was more important than

the technology itself. Therefore, the professional development sessions that prepared

52
teachers to integrate technology in the classroom should have been effective. Educational

leaders needed to make informed decisions about the most effective models to use when

training teachers how to integrate technology. Thus, with NCLB accountability and AYP,

educational leaders were searching to find ways to promote and enhance student

achievement in schools. One of the greatest benefits of technology was its ability to

transform the learning process to enhance student achievement if it was integrated

appropriately (Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, & Rasmussen, 1998). Therefore, the

professional development choices that were made by educational leaders to prepare

teachers to integrate technology appropriately for student achievement were crucial.

The U.S. Department of Education (2008) awarded approximately five million

dollars to states in 2007 to enhance education through technology. Schools and districts

spent an abundance of money on technology and technology teacher training because

they expected teachers to transform educational technology by aligning and integrating it

into the curriculum so there would be increasing academic results. However, when

teachers participated in the staff development courses to learn how to effectively integrate

technology to enhance academic achievement and the course was not designed for that

reason it became wasted money and time. It became evident that states valued their

money and teachers valued their time.

According to the state of Georgia technology plan (2008), “the current emphasis

was ensuring that technology was used effectively to create new opportunities for

learning and to promote student achievement. As such, few would argue we were not

making progress” (p. 7). The state of Georgia placed high emphasis and huge amounts of

money into teachers integrating technology and in return expected students to learn and

53
demonstrate achievement through high-stake test results. For that reason, Georgia’s

professional development training models that met the certification requirements trained

teachers how to appropriately integrate technology in the classroom. However, in the

effort to train all teachers by the end of 2005- 2006 school year, many districts in Georgia

developed their own professional development course as an alternate to the Georgia

Framework InTech course. Therefore, with all the investments that had been put into

educational technology, it was worth investigating how teachers transferred the

knowledge from the competency course to produce technological enhanced lessons for

student achievement.

Furthermore, despite increased access to technology software and hardware,

schools were experiencing difficulty in integrating technology into the curriculum.

According to research, teachers had access to technology but had difficulty applying the

pedagogical practices without participating in a professional development course that was

designed for adult learners (Barnett, 2003). However, the problem occurred even after

they participate in a professional development technology course. Initially, teachers did

not shift gears to integrate the newly learned technology skills. The difficulty was that

teachers could not seem to change to a more constructivist approach of teaching. Hall and

Hord (2001) noted that teachers may feel a sense of loss as they changed their teaching

style. A style in which they had became comfortable with and showed resistance when

asked to learn a new style, or to change. Thus, the learning of technology was not

difficult for the teacher. Rather, the implementation simply required altering to a more

constructivist style of teaching. In addition, the United States Department of Education

implemented the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology PT³ grants to

54
address the need to train teachers. It was found at the College of Education at Arizona

State that many teachers trained within their program were not using technology in their

classroom. As such, it was determined that teachers primarily used games, and practice

and drill activities instead of analytic and project-oriented lessons (Beckett et al., 2003).

Drill and practice drill activities alone did not lead to student achievement and unused

technologies were a waste of funds spent. Therefore, it was important to examine

teachers’ perceptions and perspectives of integrating technology to provide solutions and

appropriate support for teachers to fully integrate technology into the curriculum for

student achievement. As a result, the finding contributed to the body of knowledge of

adopted technology professional development programs in Georgia, presented empirical

evidence of is impact and insight for decision making of educational leaders in promoting

technology integration.

Research Questions

This study brought together a connection of educational policy expectations and

the realities and experiences of high school teachers who strived to transform didactic

practices to constructivist pedagogies using educational technology. The researcher

sought to better understand the realities and experiences of high school teachers in their

quest to integrate technology in the curriculum; thus, qualitative methods were engaged.

The following research questions guided this study:

1. What are the participants’ perceptions on integrating technology in the

curriculum?

55
 2. Do the participants integrate technology in the curriculum after completing the

professional development technology course offered by the school system?

3. To what extent do high school teachers perceive that their professional

development experience prepared them to integrate technology into their

curriculum?

4. What are the perceived needs identified by the participants to successfully

integrate technology into the curriculum of their classroom?

5. What are some factors that influence the use or non use of technology to

enhance the curriculum, such as motivation, strategies, and barriers?

Research Methodology

This research was conducted to contribute to the body of knowledge by exploring

how teachers integrated technology in the classroom after completing a professional

development course that met the state technology competency requirement. The

researcher attempted to gain a realistic description of teachers’ quest in integrating

technology. Therefore, it was appropriate to employ qualitative case study methods to

examine this phenomenon. Creswell (2007) defines qualitative research as

an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of

inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The researcher builds a complex,

holistic picture, analyzes words, report detailed views of informants, and conducts

the study in a natural setting. (p. 99)

56
Charles and Mertler (2002) described qualitative research as to provide vivid

descriptions, explanations and evaluation. They further conveyed that a case study

provided understanding by seeking out identifiable patterns in behavior and procedures.

This was the methods employed that guided the research in examining the social

behaviors encountered by teachers in the quest to integrate technology in the curriculum

to enhance student achievement.

Research Design

This was a case study research design. Yin (2009) defined a case study as a

“preferred strategy when how or why questions are being posed, the investigator has little

control over events, and when the focus is on contemporary phenomenon within some

real-life context” (p. 2). Additionally, case study referenced either a single case or

multiple case studies. This was a multiple-case study with confirmatory cases. Further,

Yin (2009) provided five components to guide the case study design, that is, study

questions, propositions, if any, units of analysis, the logic linking the data to the

proposition, and the criteria for interpreting the findings (p. 27).

Case study was a viable method for educational research (Yin, 2009). Case

studies provided vivid descriptions, explanations, and/or evaluations (Charles & Mertler,

2002). According to Yin, 2009, this case study aligned to the criteria to examine a case in

its natural context. Yin explains that there were usually two reasons to employ case

studies. One reason was to address a descriptive question of (what happened?) or address

an explanatory question (how or why something happen?). The second reason was to

highlight a situation to get a better understanding. Nonetheless, case study methods were

57
“best applied when research addresses descriptive or explanatory questions and aims to

produce a first-hand understanding of people and events” (Yin, 2009, p. 3). In this

research case study was a technique used to closely investigate selected teachers as he or

she attempted to integrate technology. Behaviors, events, artifacts, customs, and peoples’

beliefs of the environment around them were used as data.

This case study employed qualitative research methodology. Qualitative research

or postpositive research was a multiple method approach that involved interpretive and

naturalistic ways to address the subject (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). According to Strauss

and Corbin, 1990, qualitative method was utilized to gain a better understanding of any

phenomenon of which little is yet known. Qualitative method was also applied to gain

more in depth information that seem to be difficult to explain quantitatively, or to gain

new perspectives on things of which much was already known. Hence, qualitative

method was appropriate for studies in which the researcher determined that quantitative

measures cannot adequately portray or interpret a situation. The research problems were

designed as open-ended questions that supported the discovery of new gathered

information.

Population and Sampling Procedures

According to Creswell (1994), “the idea of qualitative research is to purposefully

select informants that will best answer the research questions” (p. 148). In 1998, Creswell

further added that participants should share insight to the specific phenomena. Therefore,

the sampling of this research used a nonrandom and purposeful approach. The sampling

was purposeful to provide a rich vivid detailed case that the researcher feels would be

58
beneficial to the reader. The researcher selected the participants based on specific

characteristics and criteria of the population. The case study would be a secondary high

school where teachers who completed Power To Teach were expected to transfer learned

skills to integrate technology in the curriculum.

There were several staff development course offerings of Power To Teach

throughout the year. There were four certified teachers selected for this study that

completed this technology competency course. There were four cases selected to study

for comparison and to explore patterns or themes that was found in other locations.

Hence, this study did not explore a phenomenon analyzing whether Power To Teach was

an effective means to integrate technology. The study explored if teachers were

transferring knowledge learned from the course into their classroom. Therefore, it was

appropriate and more valuable to provide in-depth information provided by a small

number of participants rather than a less in-depth analysis from a large number of

participants (Gall, et al., 1996).

The four participants and school were purposely selected since

1. Each teacher has completed the Power To Teach Course to meet the

technology competency State Requirement and “highly qualified”

certification.

2. The teachers were in their natural setting of teaching.

3. The researcher had access to the school and teachers because the researcher is

an employee of the local school district, and able to gain permission to access

the school of choice.

4. The teachers were considered novice teachers.

59
 Sources of Data

According to Patton (2002), there were three means of collecting data in a case

study. The three means are interviews, observation, and documents. This case study used

interviews, questionnaires, and archival documents. Interview questions were constructed

for this study to obtain background information, opinions, and skills gained on the

participating four teachers. A questionnaire was developed and used for this research, and

piloted by two high school assistant administrators. The two assistant principals had

responsibilities for teacher professional learning in their school building and able to

disseminate to the course participants. The questionnaire referenced data that pertained to

expectations of the professional learning course and how the expectations related to the

classroom. In addition, personal dialogues were available to clarify any questions. The

qualitative data assisted in understanding the situations and experiences of the

participants and the opportunity to examine barriers of the population.

Validity

Creswell and Miller (2000) discussed that validity was affected by the

researcher’s perception of validity of the case study and was the researcher choice of

paradigm assumptions. Therefore, qualitative researchers developed their own concepts

of validity and utilized acceptable terms such as quality, rigor, and trustworthiness

(Davies & Dodd, 2002). Thus, Guba and Lincoln (1985) proposed the four criteria for

judging validity in qualitative research for (a) credibility, (b) transferability, (c)

dependability, and (d) confirmability.

60
 Credibility in this case study was obtained through triangulation. Triangulation of

the participants’ data and perspectives ensured accuracy, usability and a possibility of

replication of the methods and findings. Yin (2009) affirmed that analyzing multiple

sources of evidence that gave multiple measures of the same observable fact addresses

validity and its probable problems. He described construct validity that fits the criteria of

this research. Construct validity was the use of multiple sources of evidence, establish

chain of evidence, have key informants review draft case study report. According to

Mathinson (1988), “Triangulation has risen an important methodological issue in

naturalistic and qualitative approaches to evaluation [in order to] control bias and

establishing valid propositions because traditional scientific techniques are incompatible

with this alternate epistemology” (p. 13).

Qualitative research offered an understanding of the case studied; therefore, the

researcher provided a rich thick description of the case to allow readers to make decisions

concerning transferability (Merriam, 1988). Accordingly, participants had an opportunity

to view the end result to verify that the quoted information is accurate. The researcher

described any changes that occur and how these changes affect the research approach of

the study. During the case study, the researcher repeatedly examined whether the research

findings portray reality to reassure validity.

To provide confirmability, the researcher conducted a data audit that examined

the data collection and procedures for bias or distortion. Merriam (1998) asserted that

validity was concerned with internal and external validity. Internal validity was concern

with how the research finding compare to reality. External validity was concerned with

how the findings could transfer to other situations (Merriam, 1998). Thus, an audit in this

61
study was conducted to examine whether the findings, interpretations, and conclusions

were supported by the collected data. Aldo, an audit trail and journal were maintained.

To find validity in this case study the researcher followed the six guidance points

by Ratcliff (1995). The researcher in this case study

1. Continuously referred back to personal notes kept from the beginning to see if

the data has diverged from initial expectations.

2. Converged variations of other sources by using triangulation and comparison

of existing literature. Interviews, observations, and e-mail, were used to

gather teachers’ perspectives. Classroom instruction were observed and

recorded.

3. Used extensive quotations from field notes, and transcripts of interviews.

4. Utilized other research data such as video and audio recording and archival

data. Some classroom and teacher planning observations were video recorded

and all classrooms and teacher planning was audio recorded for transcription

purposes.

5. Involved more than one person in the research of the participants studied.

6. Conducted a member check at the end of the study by verifying with the

participants regarding accuracy and the need for correction or elaboration on

the constructs.

Reliability

Reliability was the extent in which the results of an experiment yield the same

results over a number of trails. In this study, reliability was addressed through using four

62
participants in the case study and looking for replication in the descriptions of the

participants. Reliability was ensured by viewing video tapings multiple times, listening to

the audio tapes numerous times and transcribed audio tape multiple times as well.

Furthermore, the gathered data was categorized and coded to understand the findings and

conclusions. In addition, the categorizing and coding findings will provide meaning and

understanding to other school system in their quest of assisting teachers to integrate

technology in the curriculums of their schools. The repetitive observations within the

same investigation provided opportunity for reliability check points. Merriam (1998)

stated “ the logic relies on repetition for the establishment of truth; but everyone knows

measurement, observations, and people can be repeatedly wrong; however, all reports of

personal experiences are not necessarily unreliable” (p. 206). Yin explained that

reliability was the last test to make sure that if a researcher repeated the same research the

results would be the same.

Data Collection Procedures

The data collection of this study was in a classroom setting. Interviews,

observations, documents, and questionnaires were used in the data collection process.

The data gathered from the study will be presented as a description of the process of the

teachers experiencing integrating technology into their classroom. This case study was an

inductive research in that identified patterns and or trends in the experience of integrating

technology in the curriculum.

The four participants of this case study attended the Power To Teach professional

Development course for certification. Teachers from across the school system enroll in

63
this course through Professional Development office via the web. Teachers were selected

nonramdonly and purposively. Purposively sampling identifies rich information cases to

study (Patton, 1990). The purpose of selecting the four informants was based on the

criteria of their participation in the Power To Teach Course and being a non first year

teacher. In addition, they will be selected based on convenience, geographic proximity

and access (Yin, 2009). The teachers for this study will consist of four teachers at one

high school in the State of Georgia.

Audio taped interviews were conducted during the study. According to Yin

(2009), interviews keep the focus on the topic, and provide insight, explanations, and

perceived causal assumptions. In this case study, teachers were asked to describe their

perspectives about technology integration, skills they acquired, if they feel prepared, and

the factors that influence or not influence the use of such as their motivations, fears, and

struggles with technology. The questions were open-ended questions so that the

participants can describe their perceptions and experiences. During the sessions, notes

were written and some observations were video-taped. The video tape will assist in

notating the teachers’ instructional methods and to accurately document the events that

will take place during the session. The questionnaire requested data pertaining to

technology use and integration in the classroom. Documents such as lesson plans and e-

mails will be reviewed for stability and exactness of details and events that take place in

the classroom to corroborate the study.

“Observational evidence is often useful in providing additional information about

a topic being studied” (Yin, 2009, p. 110). To further understand the problems

encountered, or none, with integrating technology into the curriculum after completing

64
the staff development course, classroom observations will be done. Observations were

direct formal and direct informal, such as that from above mentioned interviews, and

classroom visits. The participating teachers were encouraged to maintain dialogue with

the researcher via e-mail throughout the case study. The dialogues were included into the

journal and aided in recording the teacher’s feelings or questions. Additionally, e-mail

will also be used to schedule interviews and observation sessions.

Data Analysis Procedures

The analysis of the qualitative data consisted of identifying themes from the raw

data to determine what is to be learned and patterns. The researcher broke the raw data

down into parts and synthesizes each to find patterns that exist. This analysis was

referred to as “open coding” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). During “open coding”, the

researcher identified conceptual categories and temporarily named them for the observed

group phenomena.

In case study research, Yin (2009) discussed analysis of qualitative data. Yin

prescribed pattern- matching, explanation building, logic models, cross case synthesis

and time-series analysis. For the most part, the analysis relied on the theoretical

propositions and a developed descriptive framework that led to case study. The analysis

of the data was the result of higher level synthesis of the information. The beginning

codes was generated from the research questions and examined to fit the data as it was

analyzed.

The data coding was organized to depict patterns or themes to transcribe from the

observation, interviews, and e-mail. This entailed identifying descriptors or codes,

65
grouping categories of data together, recoding data if needed, and of course reading the

transcriptions to gain a sense of the whole. The codes related to each other. Exclusively,

the researcher examined the data for descriptors that identified the teacher’s perspectives

about technology integration skills they acquired, i.e., preparation, motivations, fears, and

struggles with technology. The coding categories comprised of acquired skills,

confidence level, pedagogical classroom practices, time, lesson plans, classroom

management, access, and support. In a research study conducted by Gersten and Baker

(2000), clustering techniques to recognize patterns that emerged in their study was also

used.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical issues were considered when conducting research and analyzing data.

Qualitative research was observational and required interaction with groups. Therefore,

certain ethical issues could have arisen that did not occur. To consider ethical concerns,

the researcher secured all necessary Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to

conduct the research. The participants signed an appropriate informed consent forms that

addresses code of conduct. The school principal granted permission to conduct the study

in their school and a copy of the IRB was provided to them. The participants were

volunteers and could have withdrawn from the study at any time. The participants were

anonymous and pseudonyms were used throughout the study. The researcher was truthful

in presenting data. At the conclusion of the study, the researcher presented each

participant with a summary of the study.

66
 Summary

For this study, technology novice teachers were selected who met the technology

state requirement by attending the Power To Teach course offered by the school system.

This qualitative case study employed a naturalistic constructivist approach to study

methodology using one public school in one school district in the state of Georgia. The

data were gathered from interviews, observations, dialogues, and archival documents and

analyzed with the intent to provide information and recommendations that may positively

influence the process of technology integration in high school curriculums. Every effort

was made to ensure rigor and generalization of the findings of the study.

67
 CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to understand the perspective of

teachers and their quest in effectively integrating technology in the curriculum to increase

student achievement after completing the district’s approved technology competency

course. The purpose of this chapter is to present all of the data analysis findings in order

to address the following research questions:

1. What are the participants’ perceptions on integrating technology in the

curriculum?

2. Do the participants integrate technology in the curriculum after completing the

professional development technology course offered by the school system?

3. To what extent do high school teachers perceive that their professional

development experience prepared them to integrate technology into their

curriculum?

4. What are the perceived needs identified by the participants to successfully

integrate technology into the curriculum of their classroom?

5. What are some factors that influence the use or non use of technology to

enhance the curriculum, such as motivation, strategies, and barriers?

Three data sources, which include interviews questionnaires and observations,

were integrated in order to address the research questions. This chapter outlines the data

analysis procedures that were utilized, provides a summary of the participants’ individual

68
characteristics, provides the results for each research question and concludes with an

integrative summary of the findings.

Descriptive Data

This section of the chapter provides a descriptive summary of the participants’

individual characteristics such as number of years since they took the approved

technology competency course, grade level taught, use of technology prior to course

completion, receipt of additional training on integrating technology since completion of

the course and type of classroom (teacher-centered vs. student-centered).

Table 1 shows the number of years since the participants in this study took the

approved technology competency course. The results indicate that the number of years

since taking the course ranged from one year to five years or longer.

Table 1. Time Since Taking the Approved Technology Competency Course

Lapse in technology instruction Frequency

1 year 1

2 years 1

3 years 1

4 years 1

5 years or longer 1

The grade levels taught by the participants in this study are presented in Table 2.

The summarized results indicate that some of the teachers taught more than one grade

level given that the total frequency exceeds the total number of participants. In fact, one

69
of the teachers taught both 9th and 10th grade and another teacher taught both 11th and 12th

grade. Therefore all of the teachers taught high school only.

Table 2. Grade Levels Taught

Grade levels taught Frequency

9th grade 2

10th grade 2

11th grade 2

12th grade 1

The number of years of teaching experience of the participants in the study is

summarized in Table 3. The results indicate that the amount of experience ranged from

five years to 36 years with three teachers having between 10 and 15 years of experience.

Table 3. Years of Teaching Experience

Years of teaching experience Frequency

5 years 1

10 years 1

14 years 1

15 years 1

36 years 1

Table 4 summarizes participants’ responses when asked if they used technology

in their lesson plans prior to taking the approved technology competency course. The

results in Table 4 indicate that two out of the five teachers had not used technology prior

70
to taking the course. Of the three that did use technology prior to the course, two

teachers used it once a week and one teacher used it only once a month.

Table 4. Use of Technology in Lessons prior to Course

Use of technology prior to course Frequency

No use prior to course 2

Used once a month 1

Used once a week 2

Teachers were also asked if they had received any additional training on

integrating technology since they completed the approved technology competency

course. The results in Table 5 indicate that only one teacher received additional training

on the integration of technology since taking the approved technology competency

course.

Table 5. Received Additional Training on Integrating Technology

Received additional training Frequency

No 4

Yes 1

In addition to the quantitative information from the questionnaire, participants

were asked to describe their teaching philosophy. Four out of the five participants

specifically stated that they believe all children can learn or master the material. The fifth

participant indicated that teachers must address and therefore teach to the whole child and

consider his/her background. Other comments pertained to teachers needing to find ways

71
to be flexible and find ways to teach children who learn in different ways, teachers need

to be able to relate to the students and vice versa, and teachers need to be able to relate

the course material to the students’ lives.

Finally, teachers were asked to describe how they perceive themselves as

teachers. Participant 1 described himself as a good teacher who is knowledgeable of the

content so that he can make the connection of the lesson to the real world and he always

tries to differentiate his instructional strategies to best teach each student. Participant 2

described himself as a great teacher who makes sure that the students understand the

material and who keeps them motivated about learning. Participant 3 indicated that he is

still learning himself and he is an exceptional teacher who tries his best and takes

students’ failures personally. Participant 4 perceived herself as a teacher who cares about

children and who is not their friend but rather their leader and a source of guidance.

Participant 5 described herself as a teacher who finds different techniques necessary to

teach kids and make them want to learn and to strive for continuous improvement.

The results in Tables 1 through 5 provided some background information on the

research sample with regard to their individual characteristics, their use of technology

prior to the approved technology competency course and the training they received since

taking the course.

Data Analysis

The three data sources in this study reflected five distinct content areas and the

integration of technology into those curricular areas. The five content or curricular areas

examined in this study include English Language Arts, Reading, Mathematics, Science

72
and Social Studies. The data sources and their alignment to the research questions are

outlined in Table 6. The information in Table 6 indicates that the different data sources

were linked to specific research questions and that some of the data sources were linked

to more than one research question. Also, since Research Question 2 focused on the

actual integration of technology into the classroom, all three data sources were utilized in

order to address that research question. Finally, since the observation data focused

specifically on the use of technology in the classroom, the observation data were used to

address Research Question 2 only.

Table 6. Data Sources and Research Questions Alignment

Data sources Research Questions

Interviews Questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

Questionnaires Questions 2, 3 and 5

Observations Question 2

The interview data were analyzed through the process of open-coding, in which

participants’ responses were conceptually categorized, based on the content of the

response and only responses germane to the research questions were coded. Each

response was initially identified as relating to a specific research question and then all of

the responses relating to a given research question were coded. This open-coding process

assists in the identification of themes whereby the researcher decomposes the raw data

down into parts and then synthesizes each part in order to find emergent patterns (Strauss

and Corbin, 1990). The same analysis process was used for the two qualitative items at

the end of the questionnaire.

73
 The observation data were coded similarly, but instead of coding responses,

actions and activities were coded and then categorized. The observation data was

specifically intended to provide evidence of the integration of technology into the

classroom and the phenomenon of the integration. Therefore, the physical and emotional

atmosphere of the classroom was considered, the dynamics in the classroom were

considered, the interactions between students and the teacher were considered and the

teaching methods and styles were considered. Although the process of coding was the

same, the process of interpretation was different in the observation data codes.

Finally, the quantitative questionnaire data were entered into SPSS (version 16.0)

and descriptive summaries of the participants’ responses were computed. Therefore,

frequency distributions were created for nominal or categorical questionnaire items and

Likert scale items were analyzed by computing descriptive statistics such as means,

modes, minimum values and maximum values. The summarized questionnaire data

provided a source of verification regarding the use of technology in the classroom and the

barriers associated with the integration of technology in the classroom. The questionnaire

also provided information relative to the extent to which school teachers perceive that

their professional development prepared them to integrate technology.

Results

This section of the chapter provides the data analysis results for each research

question. The data analysis results are presented in their entirety for each research

question. Therefore, the findings from multiple data sources may be presented

simultaneously, if applicable. However, when presenting findings from the same data

74
source across different research questions, only the information or findings specific to the

research question are presented.

Research Question 1

The first research question examined the participants’ perceptions on integrating

technology in the curriculum. In order to address this research question, several of the

interview questions were examined. One of the interview questions that relates to

Research Question 1 asked the participants to describe their ideal technology integrated

classroom. The participants’ responses are outlined in Table 7. The results in Table 7

indicate that the most common theme was that the ideal integrated classroom would have

enough of computers and technological resources in every class at all times.

Another theme that emerged, but based on multiple examples given by Participant

5 only, was that concept of students having access to each other from outside of the

school where they can do research from home and communicate with other students and

the teacher remotely. In addition to the above mentioned themes, many of the responses

represented actual outcomes whereby the use of technology was discussed as a means to

an end. For example, one of the participants explained “I think the ideal technology

integrated classroom is students and teachers using computers and tech tools to make

connections to enhance knowledge of content.” Another participant indicated “The

teacher is able to use the technologies in the class to deliver lessons and build meaning

for the students.” Therefore using technology for the facilitation and advancement of

knowledge was another emergent theme in the responses.

75
Table 7. Profile of Ideal Technology Integrated Classroom
Ideal technology integrated classroom P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

High expectations (teacher and student) X

Linking web material with classroom material X
Use of computers/tech tools to make connections X
Enough computers and technology in class at all times X X X X
Able to use technology for lesson delivery to build
meaning X
Virtual fieldtrips and exploration X
Plug-in for PP, TV and wireless connections X
Don’t remove students' technology (e.g. cell phones) X
Seamless transition from book to technology X
Availability of lap tops; all students log-in at one time X
Students able to communicate at one time outside of
school X
Ability to do research and school work outside of
school X

The next interview question relating to Research Question 1 asked participants

how they feel about using technology in their classroom. The participants’ responses are

outlined in Table 8. The results in Table 8 indicate that no dominant themes emerged but

two participants indicated that they love to teach using technology and two participants

indicated that the use of technology in the classroom may be limited due to equipment

failures or a lack of computer and technological availability.

76
Table 8. Perceptions Regarding the Use of Technology in the Classroom
Perceptions on use of technology in classroom P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Love to teach using technology X X

Want class that has computers for every student;

wireless X

Not many problems with students using computers at

home X

Would use it more often if had the necessary resources X

Limited by operation failures or lack of availability X X

Kids love it X

It bridges the classroom with the real world X

Creates healthy competition between students X

Facilitates creativity of students X

Can be used for formal, formative assessment X

It's good if class size is not too large or if more class

time X

Participants were also asked if they felt particularly competent or incompetent in

certain areas in technology such as trouble shooting, software issues, use of the Internet,

etc. The participants’ outlined responses in Table 9 indicate that the only theme that

emerged was that teachers did not feel competent in trouble shooting. Participant 3 was

not asked the question in the interview and therefore no responses are noted for that

participant. Although participants tended to identify a specific area in which they lacked

competency, they were not likely to pick out specific areas of competency with the

exception of Participant 2 who indicated that he is competent in the use of technology for

developing lesson plans, creating PowerPoint presentations and searching the Internet.
77
Table 9. Perceived Technological Competency
Perceived technological competency P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Competent in most areas X

Incompetent in trouble shooting X X X X

Competent in planning lessons using technology X

Competent in searching the Internet X

Difficulty in finding resources X

Competent in preparing PowerPoint Presentations X

Incompetent in podcasting X

Incompetent in creating videos X

Incompetent in telecommunication X

Incompetent in smart boards X

Incompetent in software X

The last interview item associated with Research Question 1 asked participants if

they think that there is a difference between integrating technology in the classroom and

integrating technology in the curriculum. The participants’ responses are outlined in

Table 10. The results indicate that two of the participants specifically mentioned how

having technology in the classroom may result in students using computers for checking

e-mails, doing research, etc. However, if technology is used in the curriculum, then the

technology is a vehicle for delivering instruction. Interestingly, these two participants

were the same two who indicated that they love to use technology.

78
 The results in Table 10 also indicate that two participants felt that there is a slight

difference between the two types of integration, which depends on the teacher. For

example, one of the participants explained that if the technology is integrated into the

curriculum, then all teachers would have to use it regardless of their ability or comfort

level.

Table 10. Integration of Technology in Classroom vs. Curriculum

Difference between Integration in classroom vs.
curriculum P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
Yes, classroom is end in itself, curriculum is means to
end X X

Slight difference, depending on teacher knowledge X

Additional money for curriculum implementation X

No, if in classroom, then technology must be in

curriculum X

Slight difference, integration requires all teachers to do

it X

The overall themes for Research Question 1 are summarized in Table 11. The

results in Table 11 indicate that an ideal integrated classroom is viewed as one with

enough of functional computers and technological resources at all times, and students

having the ability to use technology to do academic work and to communicate with

classmates and teacher outside of school. When technology is used in the classroom it is

used for the facilitation and advancement of student knowledge and competency.

Although the teachers had varying levels of perceived competency in the use of

technology in the classroom, trouble shooting was a perceived weakness for teachers.

Finally, the two teachers who specifically indicated a love for the use of technology in the

79
classroom specifically indicated that they integrate technology into the curriculum as a

means to an end, as a vehicle for increasing student interest, knowledge and performance.

Table 11. Synthesis of Findings for Research Question 1: Themes

Themes for Research Question 1
Ideal integrated classroom has plenty of computers & technological resources at all
times

Ideal if have ability to use technology to do work and communicate outside of class

Use of technology for the facilitation & advancement of student knowledge &
competency

Incompetent in trouble shooting

Teachers who love technology see it as a means to an end through curriculum

integration

Research Question 2

The second research question asked if the participants in the study integrate

technology in the curriculum after completing the professional development technology

course offered by the school system. In order to address this research question, all three

data sources were examined. The questionnaire results are presented first followed by the

interview results and finally the results from the observations.

Questions 9 through 13 on the questionnaire directly related to the participants’

use of technology in the classroom. Each of these questions was based on a six point

Likert scale ranging from never to more than once a day. The coding scheme used was

never (0), once a year (1), once a month (2), once a week (3), once a day (4) and more

than once a day (5)

80
 Question 9 asked participants how often they use a set of listed technological

tools and resources as part of their instructional lesson. The participants’ summarized

responses to the tools and resources listed on the survey are provided in Table 12.

Table 12. Use of Technology as Part of an Instructional Lesson

Technological tool or resource Minimum Maximum Mean Mode

Word processing 2 5 2.80 2

Desk top publishing 2 3 2.20 2

Spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) 0 4 1.40 0

Internet 3 5 3.60 3

Web page authoring 0 1 0.20 0

E-mail 0 5 2.00 0

Presentation software 0 3 2.00 2, 3

Video tapes 1 5 3.00 3

Hand held devices 0 0 0.00 0

Interactive / smart boards 0 2 0.60 0

Wiki, Twitter 0 0 0.00 0

Podcasting, media streaming 0 0 0.00 0

Blackboard 0 2 0.40 0

The results indicate that on average, participants were most likely to use the Internet

(mean = 3.60) followed by video tapes (mean = 3.00). Therefore, participants use the

Internet between once a week and once a day and use video tapes once a week, on

average. Conversely, none of the participants reporting using hand held devices, Wiki,

81
Twitter, pod casting or media streaming. However, one of the participants indicated in

the interview that he used pod casting at another school and enjoyed it. Finally, in some

cases participants were very different with their reported uses of technology with some

using in daily and others never using it.

Table 13. Student Use of Technology in the Classroom

Technological tool or resource Minimum Maximum Mean Mode

Word processing 1 4 2.20 2

Desk top publishing 1 3 2.00 2

Spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) 0 1 0.20 0

Internet 2 4 3.20 3, 4

Web page authoring 0 0 0.00 0

E-mail 0 5 1.60 0

Presentation software 1 3 2.00 2

Video tapes 0 3 1.80 3

Hand held devices 0 1 0.20 0

Interactive / smart boards 0 0 0.00 0

Wiki, Twitter 0 0 0.00 0

Podcasting, media streaming 0 0 0.00 0

Blackboard 0 1 0.20 0

The next question related to Research Question 2 asked participants how often

their students use the list of technology tools in their classroom. The summarized

responses in Table 13 indicate that the participants’ students were most likely to use the

Internet in the classroom (mean = 3.20) and that they used it between once a week and

82
once a day. The variability with regard to the students’ use of technology in the

classroom was greatest with regard to e-mail. Finally, in general, students were not likely

to use the listed forms of technology on a regular basis, with the exception of the Internet.

Questions 11 through 13 on the questionnaire were based on the same scale as

questions 9 and 10, but they were not based on a list of technological tools and resources.

Question 11 asked participants how often their students use technological tools in their

classroom in order to increase content knowledge. Therefore, question 11 specifically

referred to the use of technology for the sole purpose of increasing content knowledge

versus question 10 which referred to the general use of technology in the classroom.

The summarized responses in Table 14 indicate that the participants’ students

were likely to use at least one type of technological tool in the classroom in order to

increase content knowledge. In fact, the responses ranged from once a month to once a

day, with the mean being 3.20, or between once a week and once a day. Also, the

distribution was bimodal with two participants saying once a week (value = 3) and two

participants saying once a day (value = 4).

Table 14. Technology in the Classroom to Increase Content Knowledge

Student use of technology Minimum Maximum Mean Mode

Use for content knowledge 2 4 3.20 3, 4

Question 12 asked participants how often technological tools and resources are

used in their classroom for higher-order thinking skills such as evaluating, analyzing and

creating. The summarized responses in Table 15 indicate that the participants’ responses

ranged from once a year to every day with the most common response being once a week

83
(mode = 3). Therefore all of the participants reported using technology tools for higher-

order thinking skills with most using it at least once a month.

Table 15. Technological in Classroom for Higher-Order Thinking Skills

Technology tools in classroom Minimum Maximum Mean Mode

Use for higher-order thinking 1 4 2.60 3

The last questionnaire item relating to Research Question 2 was question 13,

which asked participants how often their students connect real-life problems and issues

and use technological tools such as collaborative tools to find solutions in class. The

summarized responses in Table 16 indicate that the range was from students never

connecting real-life problems and issues and using technological tools such as

collaborative tools to find solutions in class to doing it as often as once a day. The mean

was only 1.80 (between once a year and once a month) and the most common response

was once a year (mode = 1). Therefore the participants in this study tended not to have

students connecting real-life problems and issues and using technological tools such as

collaborative tools to find solutions in class on a regular basis.

Table 16. Connection of Real-Life Problems and Collaboration

Students use of technology Minimum Maximum Mean Mode

Use for real-life and collaboration 0 4 1.80 1

The interview data findings are presented next. The participants were asked

during the interview if they use technology in their classroom and why. The participants’

84
summarized responses in Table 17 indicate that all five participants use technology in the

classroom and the most common reason was to help kids connect to the content or

academic knowledge being conveyed through the lesson. Another, but less common

theme was because kids love it.

Table 17. Reasons for Using Technology in the Classroom

Use of technology in the classroom and why P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Use technology to help kids connect to academic

knowledge X X X

Kids love it X X

Technology is the real world X

Need technology to stay current X

Have a passion for technology X

Kids can use it to prepare for a lesson prior to

instruction X

Motivates kid's interest X

The second and last interview question that relates to Research Question 2 asked

participants “How would I have seen technology used this year in your classroom had I

followed you from the first day of school?” The participants tended to have varying

interpretations of this question with some giving specific curricular uses and others

providing the specific technological tool used. The summarized responses are provided

in Table 18. The results indicate that three participants specifically mentioned using the

85
Internet and using PowerPoint presentations. Other less common themes included using

technology for student projects, using videos and having students visit the computer labs.

Table 18. Ways in Which Technology was Used in the Classroom

Ways in which technology was used during the year P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Review / overview sections X

Student projects X X

Videos X X

Maintaining and reporting student records X

Internet (research, scavenger hunts, etc.) X X X

PowerPoint X X X

Students visit computer labs X X

Introduce and connect lessons X

Syllabus requirement to use U.S. test prep online X

Audio recorders X

IPODs X

Improved speaking (audio record and listen to self) X

Calculator X

Diagnostics X

One of the participants explained that audio recorders were used for students to

improve their speaking and oral presentation abilities. Students would use audio tapes

and IPODs to listen to their selves speak and work on improving their communication

abilities. The same participant indicated that her students are required in the syllabus to

86
work on a test preparation on-line to prepare for the End of Course Test. Also, the math

teacher indicated that he and his students have used technology in the classroom to solve

math problems and for diagnostic assessments.

Based on the participants’ responses from the two interview questions,

several themes emerged. The themes indicate that technology is used because it

helps to connect children to the academic material because they love technology

and it therefore motivates them to learn. Students visit the computer labs and they

tend to use the Internet to conduct research for student projects and then use

PowerPoint for presenting their projects. Teachers tend to use the Internet to

prepare lesson plans, but tend to use videos and PowerPoint presentations to

communicate course material. The themes that emerged for Research Question 2

are

1. Technology helps kids connect to academic knowledge; they love it and

it motivates them

2. Teachers use videos, the Internet and PowerPoint presentations

3. Students use the Internet and PowerPoint presentations

4. Students do projects using technology (Internet for research/PowerPoint

presentation)

5. Students visit computer labs

The observation results are provided next. Five observations were recorded,

although one of the observations was more of a dialogue between the teacher and the

researcher and therefore no actual observation of technology being used in the classroom

was conducted. Therefore, the results of the observations are based on the five

87
observations in which a classroom was observed. Also, each observation is discussed in

its entirety prior to discussing any of the other observations. The first observation

discussed is the Language Arts observation

Language Arts Observation

The Language Arts observation depicted a scene with a teacher providing a

context for a video that the students were preparing to watch. The content being covered

was Greek mythology and Iliad in particular. The observation began with students

making comments about the room being too hot and so the temperature was manipulated

in order to make the physical classroom environment comfortable.

The teachers’ initial instruction discussed the characters that would be seen in the

video and discussed with the students some of the dynamics of the relationships between

the characters, etc. During this initial instructional period, the teacher asked students to

assume roles of characters and asked questions of the students that required not only

knowledge level thinking, but analysis and evaluation thinking skills as well, such as,

drawing conclusions or evaluating or predicting outcomes. In addition, the teacher

attempted to relate the content of Greek mythology to the students’ lives today by making

analogies between the characters and events in the movie and the students’ own lives.

Immediately prior to beginning the video, the teacher reminded the class of the

behavioral expectations and therefore set the expectations in advance for classroom

management. During the presentation of the video, the teacher would interject at key

points and invoke a brief discussion with the class to make sure that the connections were

being made and that the students were actually engaged. The students’ responses were

88
positive and they showed interest. Students asked questions and brief examples or

analogies were given to relate students to the material being presented.

This observation indicated that technology could be used in contexts where

multiple intelligences are tapped (bodily-kinesthetic, verbal, visual) and where higher

levels of critical thinking skills can be encouraged. Also, student behavior can be

maintained by setting the expectations up front and student interest can be invoked and

maintained through question and answer dialogue and through making connections

between the content being viewed and students’ own lives.

Mathematics Observation

The math observation was not interactive due to the fact that students were using

technology, such as graphing calculators, to complete a final exam in Algebra II. The

observer had some discussions with the teacher to understand the dynamics taking place

in the classroom. The classroom was quiet throughout the entire observation and the

teacher explained that the students were reviewing for the final exam and were able to

check their review answers quietly with their peers, which is evidence of collaborative

learning. In general, the math observation indicated that technology can be used quietly

in order to facilitate collaborative learning and to facilitate summative assessment.

Social Studies Observation

The social studies observation pertained to a class preparing to watch a video on

the Supreme Court jury process in U.S. government. The students watched the film while

the teacher interjected at critical points of the film to ask questions, answer questions and

89
relate the material to the students’ own lives. Although many of the questions posed by

the teacher were at the knowledge level, several higher levels of critical thinking were

invoked such as analysis and evaluation. The teacher asked students to analyze the

situation and evaluate the situation in terms of how they would react or respond. The

teacher also tried to reinforce the difference between responding and reacting by

providing an analogy to the students’ own lives and then asking students to reflect on it.

The teacher encouraged questions and discussions by responding positively to all

questions. All of the students’ questions were directly related to the lesson plan and

therefore facilitated further learning. Also, the students were expected to write a summary

of the film as a homework assignment whereby the content delivered in class could be

reinforced. The social studies observation provided evidence of technology being used in

contexts where higher levels of critical thinking skills can be encouraged and student

interest can be invoked and maintained through question and answer dialogue. Finally,

technology can be combined with lecture and discussion to help the student make

connections between the content being viewed and their own lives.

Science Observation

The science observation took place in the science lab. There were no computers

in class other than the teacher’s county issued laptop. There were science posters hung

everywhere on the walls. The overhead projector and TV monitor was positioned in the

front of the class. During the passing of the bell, students came into the science lab

classroom and continued their outside conversations while the teacher stood outside the

classroom door until the tardy bell rang. After the tardy bell, the teacher came inside the

90
class and led the students into their sponge activity on Double Displacement Reactions.

There were seven questions such as “Will the following reaction occur (__NaOH + __

CaBr2 → ___)? Therefore students were using analysis level though processing.

After about 10 minutes, the teacher went into the lesson on Isotopes and Nuclear

Reactions. On the white erase board, she wrote the words alpha and beta and went into

detail as to what these words mean in science and to reactions. She then used the

overhead projector to show some vibrant colorful illustrations as examples. She then

went back to the white board and wrote five equations for the class to work on together

aloud. Therefore the teacher utilized multiple teaching strategies such as visual, auditory

and collaborative learning. As a consequence, the students were very involved and

engaged. Some students asked questions and the teacher answered the questions. After

the class solved the five problems, she gave them a work sheet and wrote on the board

“For chemistry help visit: www.chemfiesta.com.” The students continued their

assignments individually. About 15 minutes later the bell rang for the next class. The

students took their worksheets home to finish for homework thereby reinforcing the

concepts discussed and analyzed in class.

Although the language arts and social studies teachers used videos as their

primary source of technology while the science teacher utilized a science lab, the science

observation resembled both the language arts and social studies observations in that the

teachers were able to tap into multiple learning styles and utilized multiple teaching

strategies through the integration of technology into the curriculum. Students were

interactive and engaged through the collaborative learning efforts and through the ability

to ask and answer questions directly related to the content matter.

91
 Based on the observation results, the themes that emerged are outlined in

observational themes include the use of technology to encourage higher levels of critical

thinking, collaborative learning, and content related discussions and as a tool to achieve

learning outcomes (e.g. student mastery and competency). In addition, technology can be

combined with discussion and examples or analogies can be used whereby the lesson

plans can be related to the students’ own lives. Therefore, technological tools such as

videos can be used as supplemental material to engage students. The observation themes

are

1. Higher levels of critical thinking

2. Relate to students' own lives

3. Collaborative learning

4. Technology is used as a tool to achieve learning

outcomes
5. Discussion based learning

The results for Research Question 2 can be categorized into three major

outcomes, which include specific types of technologies used, reasons for using

technology and dynamics or outcomes associated with the use of technology. The most

common types of technology used in the classroom include videos, PowerPoint

presentations, the Internet, word processors and to a lesser degree, audio devices.

Reasons for using technology include (a) teachers presenting instructional material; (b)

students presenting projects; (c) connecting the students to the material; (d) students

accomplishing school work such as projects or assignments; (e) testing (diagnostic,

summative assessment, test preparation); and (f) student improvement (listening to

presentation on tape recorder). Finally, the outcomes associated with the use of

92
technology include student engagement through discussion, collaborative learning, and

higher levels of critical thinking, real world applications and uses of multiple

intelligences.

Research Question 3

The third research question examined the extent to which the high school teachers

in this study perceive that their professional development experience prepared them to

integrate technology into their curriculum. In order to address this research question,

some of the questionnaire responses were examined and two of the interview questions

were examined. The results from the questionnaire are provided first followed by the

interview results.

Participants were asked questions on the questionnaire about their level of

proficiency and knowledge since taking the approved technology competency course. In

addition, participants were asked in an open-ended format, if the approved technology

competency course met their expectations. These questionnaire items are examined

under Research Question 3.

The first question asked participants to rate their level of proficiency using the

technology tools and resources that were previously listed and discussed in Research

Question 2. The coding scheme used was not comfortable (1), somewhat comfortable

(2), comfortable, (3) and very comfortable (4).

93
Table 19. Level of Proficiency Using Technology Tools and Resources
Level of proficiency Minimum Maximum Mean Mode

Word processing 4 4 4.00 4

Desk top publishing 2 4 3.20 4

Spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) 1 4 2.20 1

Internet 4 4 4.00 4

Web page authoring 1 4 1.80 1

E-mail 4 4 4.00 4

Presentation software 2 4 2.80 2, 3

Video tapes 2 4 3.60 4

Hand held devices 1 4 2.20 1

Interactive / smart boards 1 3 1.40 1

Wiki, Twitter 1 4 1.60 1

Podcasting, media streaming 1 2 1.20 1

Blackboard 1 4 1.80 1

The participants’ summarized responses in Table 19 indicate that all five of the

participants feel very comfortable using Word processing, the Internet and e-mail (means

= 4.00). In addition, participants felt more than comfortable but not very comfortable

with desk top publishing (mean = 3.20) and using video tapes (mean = 3.60). However,

participants tended to indicate that they were not comfortable using spreadsheets (2.20),

web page authoring (mean = 1.80), hand held devices (mean = 2.20), interactive or smart

94
boards (mean = 1.40), Wiki or Twitter (mean = 1.60), pod casting or media streaming

(1.20) and finally blackboard (1.80).

The next question asked participants to rate their knowledge level with using the

technology tools in their lessons. The summarized responses in Table 20 indicate that

participants rated themselves most knowledgeable with regard to the Internet (mean =

4.00) followed by Word processing (mean = 3.80) and video tapes (3.60).

Table 20. Level of Knowledge Using Technology Tools in Lessons

Level of knowledge Minimum Maximum Mean Mode

Word processing 3 4 3.80 4

Desk top publishing 2 4 3.00 2, 4

Spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) 1 4 2.20 1

Internet 4 4 4.00 4

Web page authoring 1 4 1.80 1

E-mail 2 4 3.00 2, 4

Presentation software 2 4 2.80 2, 3

Video tapes 2 4 3.60 4

Hand held devices 1 4 2.00 1

Interactive / smart boards 1 3 1.40 1

Wiki, Twitter, podcasting 1 4 1.60 1

Blackboard 1 4 1.60 1

All three of technology tools had mean ratings above 3.00, which reflect a mean

rating of more than knowledgeable. Participants rated themselves knowledgeable, on

average, with regard to desk top publishing (mean = 3.00) and e-mail (mean = 3.00). All

95
other ratings fell below a value of 3.00 (e.g. less than knowledgeable). However, the

lowest rating was for interactive or smart boards (mean = 1.40). Finally, although some

of the mean ratings were below knowledgeable, all of the technology tools had at least

one participant who indicated being at least knowledgeable with regard to the tool.

The last item on the questionnaire that relates to Research Question 3 was open-

ended and asked participants if the technology competency course met their expectations.

The summarized responses in Table 21 indicate that all of the participants felt as if the

course met their expectations. Some of the positive outcomes associated with the course

pertained to an increase in comfort level, great instructor, acquisition of practical

information and realizing the need for further study.

Table 21. Technology Competency Expectations

Technology course met expectations P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Technology Competency Course Met Expectations X X X X X

Was fearful prior to course, but gained comfort X
Will try some new simple things X
It was presented as a basic course and that's what it was X
Want to learn more about integration besides PP &
Publisher X
People and instructor were great; it was great X X
Practical information for use in instruction was provided X
Opened my eyes to how much I need to learn/research X

In addition to the questionnaire, the interview contained two questions that

directly addressed Research Question 3. During the interview, participants were asked to

describe their experience in their technology proficiency course. The participants’

96
summarized responses are provided in Table 22. The responses indicate that three of the

participants learned a lot, although two participants had some frustration because they

were not moving as quickly as their peers. Also, two of the participants specifically

mentioned the fact that the teacher was good and/or patient, which helped. Finally, one of

the participants indicated that although the course was good, it was difficult to attend

because the course was long and scheduled after work hours.

Table 22. Experience in the Technology Proficiency Course

Experience in technology proficiency course P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Learned a lot X X X

Feel more comfortable X

Like to have been introduced to more than just a
computer X X

Frustrating because I knew less than other teachers X X

Instructor was patient; instructor was good X X

It was good and people were good X

Long X

Hard going after work X

The second and last interview question relating to Research Question 3 asked

participants if they feel that the course adequately prepared them to integrate technology

into the curriculum and/or how effectively was the course in teaching them to integrate

technology into the classroom. The participants’ summarized responses in Table 23

indicate that although the course provided some helpful information and some benefits,

such as increased confidence or a good foundation, participants still need more training.

97
Three of the five participants who were asked this question indicated a need for more

knowledge and/or more formal training. However, as previously mentioned, the course

did provide a benefit by providing a good foundation, increasing confidence levels,

providing an understanding of the concept of technology integration and finally students

benefited academically from teachers integrating technology into their classrooms.

Table 23. Technology Integration into Classroom Course Effectiveness

Effectiveness of the course P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Provided a good foundation X X

Need to keep using and learn from trial and error X

Wants more help with social studies integration

specifically X

Somewhat effective X

It increased confidence level X

Understands concept of integrating technology X

Would of liked course to have been more updated X X

Sure, it was effective X

Applied acquired knowledge and students "took off" X

No, needs more courses to feel more comfortable X

The results for Research Question 3 indicate that although the course was

successful at providing basic information and teaching simple technological applications,

the participants would like to have had exposure to technology other than a computer and

98
software other than PowerPoint and Publisher. Also, the participants tended to view their

proficiency and knowledge levels differently; although on average the participants tended

to be less proficient and knowledgeable than more when considering a wide spectrum of

technological tools and resources. Finally, the course did meet participants’ expectations

and therefore appears to have served its purpose, which was to provide basic information

and to teach basic integration techniques.

Research Question 4

The fourth research question examined the participants’ perceived needs to

successfully integrate technology into the curriculum of their classroom. In order to

address this research question, one of the interview questions was examined.

Specifically, participants were asked what assistance could be provided to make

integrating technology in the classroom successful.

Table 24 provides the participants’ summarized responses, which indicate that all

five of the participants need greater access to computers and/or technological resources

such as printers, copiers and LCDs. Three of the five participants indicated a need for

technical assistance that is immediately available in case of trouble shooting or problems

with the technology while using it. Also, two participants indicated that they need more

resources specific to their content area and two indicated a need for more class time.

99
Table 24. Assistance for Successful Integration of Technology
Assistance needed for successful integration P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Need more access; more availability X X X X X

More resources or ideas for subject matter X X

More time X X

Technological assistance while using computers, etc. X X X

More software and tools for Science that are accessible X

Computers in every classroom X

Lab in each hallway X

In sum, the results for Research Question 4 indicate that participants need more

access to technology tools and resources than anything, and having real time

technological assistance available, having more class time and having more content

specific resources and ideas for integration would be helpful.

Research Question 5

The fifth and final research question asked participants about the factors that

influence the use or non use of technology to enhance the curriculum, such as motivation,

strategies and barriers. In order to address this research question, two interview questions

and one of the open-ended questionnaire items were examined.

The open-ended questionnaire item asked participants if they have encountered

any barriers in their attempt to integrate technology into their lessons. The summarized

responses in Table 25 indicate that the most common barrier was having access to

100
computers and/or having enough computers for students. Other barriers include not

having the technical support needed while attempting to integrate technology into the

curriculum, having class sizes that are too large to effectively use technology and not

having the time needed to effectively use technology.

Large class sizes were found to create two barriers which include potentially not

having enough computers and not being able to monitor and assist all students in need.

In addition, not having enough class time can also be a consequence of having very large

class sizes where the likelihood of user ID and password problems increase and where

technological problems may eat up a large portion of instructional time. Therefore many

of the listed barriers may actually interact with each other and simply reducing class size

may eliminate other barriers, for example.

Table 25. Barriers in Integrating Technology into Lesson Plans

Barriers to technology integration P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Having technology that works; broken or stolen

equipment X

Not having the necessary technological support X X

Class size being too large to be successful X X

Not having the time needed to integrate technology X X

Not having access to computers or enough computers X X X X

Outdated technology X

In addition to the open-ended questionnaire item, two of the interview questions

were examined under Research Question 5. The first interview question asked about the

101
challenges that participants encounter when integrating technology into the curriculum.

The participants’ summarized responses in Table 26 indicate that the biggest challenges

include not having access to computers or not having access to working and/or functional

technological equipment and time constraints. Another less dominant theme was not

having technical assistance from someone other than the students themselves.

Table 26. Challenges Integrating Technology into the Curriculum

Challenges with integrating technology into curriculum P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Not having help from someone other than the children X X

Non-working computers, obsolete equipment X X X

Having time to prepare standards based lesson plans X

Time X X X

Not having access to the labs when needed; scheduling X X X

Students without access to computers at home X

Password problems for new students X

Keeping students on task X

The second and final interview question relating to Research Question 5 asked

participants if there were any factors that influence the use or non use of technology to

enhance the curriculum, such as motivation, strategies, fears and barriers. The

participants’ responses are summarized in Table 27. The results indicate that the

participants had varying responses. However, a lack of resources was listed as a barrier

by two of the participants, which is consistent with previous responses. In general, many

of the responses pertained to the role of the school in providing some sort of assistance or

102
support, either through advocating for such integration or providing specific training

and/or assistance in the use of technology.

Table 27. Factors Influencing Use of Technology to Enhance Curriculum

Factors that influence use/non-use of technology P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Fear of students destroying the computers X

School doesn't publically promote integration of

technology X

Need to use or will lose student interest, effecting

grades X

Department chair emphasizes use of computers X

Limited time (with students and to prepare) X

Student access to technology at home X

Lack of resources and/or equipment failures; no access X X

School's ability/willingness to support integration X

Need for technology for students to be successful in

life X

Response time when technological assistance is needed X

The results for Research Question 5 indicate that the factors influencing the use or

non-use of technology to enhance the curriculum are diverse. However, the most

common factors that prohibit the use of technology include simply not having access to

computers and/or working computers for all students, large class sizes, time constraints

and school level support for the integration of technology into the curriculum. The factors

103
that encourage the use of technology into the curriculum include the need to motivate

student interest and the need to prepare students for the real world so that they may be

competitive and successful.

Summary

The results of this study indicate that participants have the desire to integrate

technology into the curriculum and they see the importance of integrating technology into

the curriculum. However, in order to have an ideal situation for the integration of

technology, every classroom must have enough of functional computers and

technological resources at all times for all students and students should have the ability to

use technology to do academic work and to communicate with classmates and teacher

outside of school. When technology is used in the classroom, it should be used for the

facilitation and advancement of student knowledge and competency. Also, although

teachers recognize the importance of integrating technology into the classroom, their

perceptions of their competency, proficiency and knowledge are diverse with some

teachers not feeling competent at all. Therefore teacher competency must also be

considered. In general, teachers feel most competent and knowledgeable using Word

processing, PowerPoint presentations, desk top publishing, e-mail, video tapes and the

Internet.

The results of this study also indicate that teachers use technology for presenting

instructional material, for students to present projects, to connect the student to the

material, for students to accomplish school work such as projects or assignments, for

testing purposes (diagnostic, summative assessment, test preparation), and for student

104
improvement (listening to presentation on tape recorder). Furthermore, the outcomes

associated with the use of technology include student engagement through discussion,

collaborative learning, and higher levels of critical thinking, real world applications and

reaching diverse learners.

With regard to the effectiveness of the approved technology competency course,

the results indicate that although the course was successful at providing basic information

and teaching simple technological applications, the participants would like to have

exposure to technology other than a computer and software other than PowerPoint and

Publisher. Also, the participants tended to view their proficiency and knowledge levels

differently; although on average the participants tended to lack knowledge and

proficiency when considering a wide spectrum of technological tools and resources.

Finally, the course did meet participants’ expectations and therefore appears to have

served its purpose, which was to provide basic information and to teach basic integration

techniques.

In addition, the results of this study indicate that participants need more access to

technology tools and resources than anything. Furthermore, having real time

technological assistance available, having more class time and having more content

specific resources and ideas for integration, having smaller class sizes and having more

school level support for the integration of technology into the curriculum would be

helpful. Finally, the results of this study indicate that the teachers integrate technology

into the curriculum in order to motivate student interest, make connections between the

material and the students’ lives and to prepare students for the real world so that they may

be competitive and successful.

105
 CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This chapter of this investigation recapitulates the research design and discusses

the findings. As presented in chapter 4, this chapter recounts high school teachers’ quest

to integrate technology in the curriculum. The chapter is organized by presenting the five

research questions first followed by the summary of findings. In addition, this final

chapter presents implications and recommendations related to this study.

Summary of the Study

Technology is woven into the fabric of the lived of American children.

Technology, whether big or small, have consumed much of our children’s time. Yet,

many teachers are not taking advantage of this tool in the classroom to increase academic

achievement. This lack of technology integration in our classroom is a concern. The

federal government, in recent years, has had a strong thrust of technology in our schools

on its pursuit to produce globally competitive students to fortify the future of America’s

workforce. The federal government has invested money in computers in schools hoping

to bridge the gap in student achievement and not to leave children behind. In 2005, the

U.S. Department of Education (2005) Secretary Margaret Spelling stated “Information

and Communication Technologies can provide a powerful platform to help transform and

strengthen education to meet the workforce needs of the 21st century” (p. 1). Thus,

106
teachers seek to find ways to use computers in their classroom to meet this expectation.

Teachers are provided computers, a curriculum, and students. They are asked to make

them all work together to increase student achievement. In this research, the researcher

investigated five teachers’ perspectives in integrating technology in the curriculum. The

researcher employed case study methods to uncover the

Summary of Findings and Conclusion

This section will construe the findings of this study and explain the significance

of the themes that emerged throughout the study. Interpreting and explaining the themes

will provide clarification of the study and its meaning.

Research Question 1. What are the participants’ perceptions on integrating technology in

the curriculum?

The overall perceptions on integrating technology in the curriculum are positive.

There were several interview questions that addressed question one. All the participants

spoke of technology integration with enthusiasm. During the interview, participants were

asked to describe their ideal technology integrated classroom. This question did not

indicate that the participants thought of technology integration in the classroom as

administrative duties via use of the computer. Overall, each participant thought of

technology integration in the classroom as the use of computers or other technologies to

assist in the learning process.

According to Beach (1994), teachers are the ones actually in the classrooms trying

to enhance student achievement so they know what works and what would not work.

107
These findings indicate that the teachers embrace technology and have the desire to do

more but are limited by the barriers of not having enough availability to technology and

not having enough computers for the student they serve and lack of technological options.

It does not appear that much of the $5,000,000 from NCLB was allocated to this rural

high school.

Research Question 2. Do the participants integrate technology in the curriculum after

completing the professional development technology course offered by the school

system?

Research Question 2 analyzed whether or not teachers integrated technology into

their lessons after the course. The data clearly suggest that teachers do use technology in

their lessons following participation of the technology course to help students connected

to the content. The results were analyzed from interviews, questions 9 through 13 of the

questionnaire, and observations. Question 9 of the questionnaire asked participating

teachers how often they use a set of technological tools and resources as part of their

instructional lesson. The most common response to this question was the use of the

Internet once a week and the use of video tapes once a week.

According to Hall and Hord (2001), after participating in a professional

development course teacher may feel loss in transitioning teaching styles such as moving

towards a constructivist approach in integrating technology. However, in these cases that

was not true. The findings of this question indicate that yes they do integrate technology

into their lessons. Each teacher at one time or another integrated technology into their

108
lessons. However, none of the teachers found ways to infuse technology into their lessons

every day or even two more days a week.

Research Question 3. This question examine the extent to which the participants felt that

the technology course that they attended help them to integrate technology into the

curriculum. Questionnaire responses and two interview questions were viewed to answer

this question.

Through several questions on the questionnaire the high school teachers were

asked about their level of proficiency and knowledge since taking the approved

technology competency course. The results of this question indicated that all of the five

teacher participants were very comfortable with Word processing, the Internet, and e-

mail. Participants felt not very comfortable with desk top publishing and using video

tapes. Additionally, participants indicated that they did not feel comfortable using

spreadsheets, web authoring, hand held devices, interactive or Smartboards, Wiki, or

Twitter, pod casting or media streaming, or Blackboard.

Overall the results revealed that the participants rated themselves most

knowledgeable with incorporating the Internet into their lessons. Word processing

followed along with desk top publishing and e-mail. The teacher participants felt less

than knowledgeable in using spreadsheets, web page authoring, handheld devices,

Wiki/Twitter, podcasting, Blackboard. The least knowledgeable tool to use in their lesson

was the Smart board/interactive boards.

Further, even though the skill levels were different as they began the course, the

teachers in this research study overall perceived their experience as successful in

109
providing the basic computers skills needed for simple technological applications.

Although, a common theme was that they wanted more training and exposure to other

technologies other than a computer, and software other than PowerPoint and Publisher.

This indicates that the explicit modeling and continued support that the course lacked is

partial responsible for this feeling. If indeed more modeling and ongoing support after the

course would have taken place they might not feel this way. Nevertheless, the course met

each of their expectations and served its purpose in providing them with a foundation to

teach using basic computer technology techniques.

Research Question 4. What are the perceived needs identified by the participants to

successfully integrate technology into the curriculum of their classroom?

Research Question 4 looked at the participants’ needs to successfully integrate

technology. All the participants expressed a need for more access and more computer

availability. Three of the five participating teachers said they needed technological

assistance while using the technology. Two of the five participants expressed a need for

more class time to use the computers. The results of Research Question 4 clearly indicate

that the teachers need access to technological tool and resources more than anything.

They also are in need of technology support on campus to assist with integration needs as

well as troubleshooting, more class time and specific resources and ideas for integration.

Removal of these barriers is an issue that school leaders should evaluate. This

particular school has technology specialist. However, they are there primary for trouble

shooting issues. There is not a lead person that teachers can go to for educational or

instructional technology support. In addition, not having enough computers is a huge

110
barrier for a teacher who has ideas but can’t implement them. More so, leaders should

evaluate options to give teachers more class time to conduct meaningful rich

technological connected lessons.

Research Question 5. What are some factors that influence the use or non use of

technology to enhance the curriculum, such as motivation, strategies, and barriers?

The ending question asked about influences to use technology or not to use

technology. In some schools administrators demand all teachers to use technology. Some

schools employ a fear tactic to get teachers to use technology and some schools simply

directly or indirectly nicely encourage teachers to integrate technology. The reason for

this question was to determine if any of the participating teachers were forced to use

technology if they were using it, offered incentives to use it, or had roadblocks that

prevented them from using it. One open-ended questionnaire item and two interview

questions were inspected to answer Research Question 5.

The most common factors that prohibit the use of technology was not having

access to the computers or working computers. The factors that motivated the use of

technology were the need to stimulate student’s interest and to motivate them. In

addition, participants felt they needed to prepare the students to compete in the world

after high school. In addition, from this question there were no participants who reported

force to use technology in their lesson. It appeared that all the participants have the intent

to use the technology even when there are barriers present. Nonetheless, the participants

also indicated that they would use technology more if these barriers did not exist.

111
 These concerns should be address to promote technology integration and as

motivator to continue using technology as a tool to increase student achievement.

Teachers felt that the school did not motivate them to use or not use technology. They

each indicate the intrinsic desire to prepare their student for the 21st century using

technology. If teachers are not provided the resources and support they need they are

reluctant to use it.

Finally, classroom observations were conducted for support of the interviews and

questionnaire. Moreover, the use of technology was very evident. However, it was the

very basic use of technology. Teachers used videos and stop at check points to connect to

the students, overhead projector to illustrate connections, and assigned websites for help

with homework. Although the technological tools were basic, all the participating

teachers in this research were able to encourage higher levels of critical thinking, engage

in collaborative learning and content-related discussions with the use of these tools.

Conclusions

In summary, the purpose of this qualitative case study was to understand the

perspective of teachers and their quest in effectively integrate technology in the

curriculum to increase student achievement after completing the district’s approved

technology competency course. The results show that the participants want to integrate

technology into their lessons. Even though the literature research demonstrated some

faults in the district’s approved technology competency course, the teachers are using

technology after taken the course. They understand that they use very simple

technologies but yearn to learn of more tools. Moreover, the participants want to have the

112
ideal classroom for technology integration. They desire to have enough functioning

computers and technological resources at all times for students to work and

communicate. In the classroom technology is a tool for facilitation and advancement of

student knowledge and competency. Even though the teachers realize the importance of

integrating technology into their classroom, their perceptions of their competency,

proficiency and knowledge are diverse. Some teachers feel that they are not competent at

all in integrating technology. Therefore, teacher competency should be considered.

Overall, teachers were more competent and knowledgeable with using Word processing,

PowerPoint, desk top publishing, e-mail, video tapes and the Internet for research.

The results of this study also indicate that teachers use technology for presenting

instructional material, for students to present projects, to connect the student to the

material, for students to accomplish school work such as projects or assignments, for

testing purposes (diagnostic, summative assessment, test preparation), and for student

improvement (listening to presentation on tape recorder). Furthermore, the outcomes

associated with the use of technology include student engagement through discussion,

collaborative learning, and higher levels of critical thinking, real world applications and

reaching diverse learners.

With regard to the effectiveness of the approved technology competency course,

the results indicate that although the course was successful at providing basic information

and teaching simple technological applications, the participants would like to have

exposure to technology other than a computer, and software other than PowerPoint and

Microsoft Publisher. Also, the participants tended to view their proficiency and

knowledge levels differently; although on average the participants tended to lack

113
knowledge and proficiency when considering a wide spectrum of technological tools and

resources. Finally, the course did meet participants’ expectations and therefore appears

to have served its purpose, which was to provide basic information and to teach basic

integration techniques.

In addition, the results of this study indicate that participants need more access to

technology tools and resources than anything. Furthermore, having real time

technological assistance available, having more class time and having more content

specific resources and ideas for integration, having smaller class sizes and having more

school level support for the integration of technology into the curriculum would be

helpful. Finally, the results of this study indicate that the teachers integrate technology

into the curriculum in order to motivate student interest, make connections between the

material and the students’ lives and to prepare students for the real world.

Recommendations

The scope of integrating technology in the curriculum is broad and can be

examine from an array of viewpoints. Thus, this topic is not limited to one study.

Therefore, other situations and conditions that have not been examined can be possibly

considered for future research. Recommendations that are drawn from this study can be

useful to the local school system as well as the entire educational system.

Recommendations for Future Research

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to understand to the perspective of

teachers and their quest in effectively integrate technology in the curriculum to increase

114
student achievement after completing the district’s approved technology competency

course. In addition, the barriers or other influential factors that encourage or discourage

integration of technology in the curriculum were also discussed. This study specifically

examined high school teachers in a suburban high school. Therefore, there are several

recommendations for further research:

1. An investigation on how new teachers use technology is needed. There is little

research on how the prepare new teachers to integrate technology in the

classroom (Clauson, 2005). For this reason, it is recommended that additional

studies be conducted to examine ways to support new teachers in their quest

to integrate technology in their classroom.

2. A future study may examine a larger population to provide a more

generalization of the results from this study. The results from a larger group of

participants may provide different results. A suggestion would be to study

teachers from several high schools in the system.

3. An additional recommendation for future is to study a rural or urban school in

the school system to see if the results differ. This study is from teachers of a

suburban school. Teachers from a rural or urban school may have different

perspectives.

4. Another possibility for further research is to study teachers who did not take

the required technology course and choose to opt out by taking the computer

competency online assessment test. These teachers may also have different

perspectives and barriers of integrating technology. Their challenges may be

found different.

115
 5. A future research could be conducted to study the students’ perspectives and

their experience participating in technology integrated classroom of the

school. After all, the students are the ones who are measured for academic

achievement. Their perspectives of integrating technology may lead to

developing best practice strategies to increase achievement through

instructional strategies.

Recommendation for Practice

The suggested recommendations for future research in integration technology in

the curriculum for practice are:

1. The school system should reexamine their distribution of technology to

schools to address the allegation that teachers have inadequate access to

computers, software and latest technologies.

2. The school system should also make an effort to identify ways in which

teachers are allotted more time to integrate technology in the curriculum and

able to plan lessons; such as reexamining the short length of class times. Some

districts have block scheduling which allows the teachers and students more

time in the classroom.

3. Schools should provide instructional technology specialist that are able to

keep teachers abreast of new technologies that are relevant to specific

academic subjects. In addition, the technology instructional specialist should

be able to provide onsite ongoing in-service opportunities to teachers to

116
 provide training of current trends in educational technologies and techniques

to integrating technology into lessons.

4. The local school system should consider the idea of providing a bank of

technology resources for teachers to use as they are planning daily lessons.

The bank could be a link on the local systems website for all teachers to use

and for easy excess from school and home. The bank could reduce planning

time which would encourage more teachers to integrate technology into their

lessons.

Implications

Computers has become an everyday tool for life and increasingly becoming an

everyday tool for learning. The results of this study will add to the body of evidence of

how and if teachers integrate technology in the classroom. The teachers’ perspectives in

this study demonstrate that technology is integrated in the classrooms after they have

completed the state required technology competency course. The purpose of this case

study was to understand the perspective of teachers and their quest in effectively integrate

technology in the curriculum to increase student achievement after completing the

district’s approved technology competency course. Each case depicted a sample of a

teachers’ quest to integrate technology into their classroom. Admittedly, using

technology in the classroom was a common theme among the participants. However,

using technology for higher level- thinking skills that are found in connecting students to

real-life problems and issues to find solutions were not employed regularly. In fact the

mode of theses skills using technology with students were only used once a year. Future

117
research can be used to study the level of technology integration that takes place in this or

similar setting.

The main idea of computer integration is to improve teaching and enhance

learning. Although schools have more computers today than a few years ago, there

continue to be a challenge for teachers to find time for students to access computers and

how to connect the subject matter using computers. The power that lies within computers

in the classroom is explosive when teachers understand and use computers to support a

constructivist paradigm for instruction. Subsequently, time management for computer use

becomes natural during this process. Lemke and Coughlin, 1998 maintain that

Teachers and students, have sufficient access to productivity tools, online

services, media-based instructional materials, and primary sources of data in

settings that enrich and extend their learning goals. Students use contemporary

tools to research issues, solve problems and communicate results, both

individually and in teams. (p. 20)

These characteristics are an example of what people expect from schools. Thus, this can

serve as a course of direction. According to these characteristics, the five teachers in this

study are heading toward the right direction in meeting the above expectations. Each

participant admits using technology and enjoys having computers in their school. Further,

they indicated that they needed assistance in transferring their knowledge to construct

embedded lessons to engaged students in conceptualizing their own solutions. In

addition, the teachers repeatedly indicated that assistance in integrating technology was

need on campus.

118
 The results of this study suggest that teachers embrace the ideal of using

technology. It can be noted that the money invested in technology at this school is well

spent as demonstrated by the participants. It also suggests that teachers could improve

their application of technology integration in the classroom. Even though they completed

the required technology course to maintain teacher certification, allow students to

research on the Internet, prepare PowerPoint presentations, and embrace technology, the

data of this research suggest that many of the participants welcome additional training.

Therefore, this study can be used as an indicator as to what the curriculum of additional

professional development sessions should entail.

Additionally, the result of this research implies that teachers do not have time to

plan nor implement technology rich lessons to enhance student achievement. Playing

games on the computer and basic Internet research is the most common assignment given

because of time limits. This research could encourage policy makers and school

administrators to reexamine the school schedule to consider the time students are in a

class on a daily basis. The result of this research is a reminder to teachers that technology

integration is not a forgotten phenomenon. Technology integration is on an up rise and

continued exploration is needed in many different facets of education. The money

invested in technology at this school is well spent as demonstrated by the participants. It

is a tool that can assist teachers in meeting NCLB and improve standardized test score.

Summary

The NCLB act places enormous emphasis on the technology integration

component to increase academic achievement for all students. Millions of dollars have

119
been spent for the sake of student achievement. This does not appear to be a bad

investment if the usage and teaching equates to student learning. But all the pieces did not

fit. More and more money is invested to remove the barriers that hinder teachers from

using technology as a vehicle to increase test scores and meet AYP. It was evident that

some of the money earmarked for technology hardware and software in not consistently

being used for that purpose. In fact, little research has been done to rather the technology

use is always implemented with the intent on increasing student achievement as measured

by standardized test scores. Some schools have too much hardware and software and

some schools not enough. Furthermore, money is invested in staff development for

teachers that does not adequately prepare teachers to implement technology into their

curriculum. None the less, some research studies have shown how some schools and

schools districts made the pieces fit for them.

This case study was significant because it presented a realistic idea of teachers’

perspectives on integrating technology in a rural high school. According to previous

research and evaluation, the professional development course that each of participants

attended did not meet all of NETS criteria. The districts selected technology course

Power To Teach lacks explicit modeling and the inclusion of techniques that are proven

to be effective in the classroom such as cooperative learning, self-reflection and follow

up support. From this, it could be concluded that the teachers in this case study was not

properly prepared through the professional development course. However, on the

contrary, the teacher participants of this study feel that they were adequately trained.

Teachers of this qualitative case study feel that they transferred the skills they learned in

staff development to lessons prepared for their student. Each participate also enjoys using

120
technology in their lessons and classroom. Some gained confidence from attending the

staff development course. Overall, teachers got what they wanted and expected from the

class; however, expressed the need for additional support in implementing and preparing

technological lessons. These teachers would be better served if the school system leaders

selected a staff development course that embedded extensive modeling on-going

connected support. Furthermore, a point to emphasize is that teachers knows what works

in the classroom, but are often left out of the decision making that impacts growth and

change (Beach, 1994; and Collinson, 1996). Therefore, this study provided a volume of

beliefs and point of views of teachers who are actually trying to make the pieces fit. Most

importantly, this study provided the data that supports the importance of teachers’

perspectives in effectively integrating technology in the curriculum. This research will

guide local school districts in selecting staff development courses for preparing teachers

to integrate technology into the curriculum and which is expected to enhance the student

achievement.

121
 REFERENCES

Armstrong, A., & Casement, C. (2000). The child and the machine: How computers put
our children's education at risk. Beltsville, MD: Robins Lane.

Barnett, H. (2003). Professional development: Successful strategies for teacher change.

Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service (No. ED 477 616).

Bernauer, J. A. (1996) Technology and leadership. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New York, NY,
April 8-12, 1996) (ERIC document ED394503). Retrieved November 29, 2008
fromhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b
/80/14/7c/b0.pdf

Cavanaugh, C., Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2005).
Instructional technology and media for learning & clips from the classroom
Package (8th Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology,

1980-. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development.

Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4-10.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). The flat world and education: How America's commitment
to equity will determine our future (Multicultural Education). New York:
Teachers College.

Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of education change. Toronto: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education (OISE).

Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Fullan, M., Hill, R., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Pacific Grove, CA: Corwin.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for
research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Georgia Department of Education - Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 2009. Georgia

Department of Education. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from
http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ayp2009.aspx?PageReq=FAQSAYP2009

122
Glennan, T., & Melmed, A. (1996). RAND. Fostering the use of education technology:
Elements of a national strategy. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from
rand.org.publications/MR/MR682.html

Grisham, D. L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2006). Recentering the middle school classroom as a
vibrant learning community: Students, literacy, and technology intersect. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(8), 648.

Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Healy, J. M. (1999). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children's minds and
what we can do about it. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning.
New York: Teachers College.

Hinton, J. (2003). The effect of technology on student science achievement. ProQuest

Dissertations and Thesis-Full Text, 765197851(UMI No. 115610).

Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2001, Index. (n.d.).
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of the U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/internet/index.Asp

Jones, B.J., Valdex, G. Nowakowski, J., Rasmussen, C. (1998). Plugging in: Choosing
and using educational technology. Washington DC: EdTalk, Council for
Educational Development and Research North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.

Joyce, B., Showers, B., & Rolheiser-Bennett, C. (1987). Staff development and student
learning: A synthesis of research on models of teaching. Educational Leadership,
45(2), 11-23.

Karpyn, A. E. (2003). School technology use and achievement on statewide assessment:

Is there a relationship? ProQuest Dissertations and Theses-Full Text, 76057391.
(UMI No. 3095897).

Laborde, C. (2007). The role and uses of technologies in mathematics classrooms:

Between challenge and Modus Vivendi. Canadian Journal of Science,
Mathematics, & Technology Education, 7(1), 68-92.

Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education
in an information age. In Kamil, M. L, Mosenthal, P. Pearson, P. D. & Barr, R.
(Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

123
Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Models of staff development. Journal of Staff Development,
10(4), 40-59.

MacArthur, C., & Malouf, D. (1991). Teacher beliefs, plans and decisions about
computer based instruction. Journal of Special Education, 25(6), 44-72.

Marshall, C. R., G. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Meyer, T., Steuck, K., Miller, T., Pesthy, C., & Redmon, D. (1999, March). Lessons
learned from the trenches: Implementing technology in public schools.
Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education,
681 - 697, San Antonio, TX.

Oppenheimer, T. (2007). The computer delusion. New York: W. W. Norton.

Parkes, J., & Stevens, J. (2003). Applied measurement in education. Legal Issues in
Schools Accountability Systems, 16, 141-158.

Picciano, A. G. (1998). Educational leadership and planning for technology (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York:

Random House.

Postman, N. (1995). The end of education. New York: Random House.

Plowden, M. (2003). The relationship between technology and student achievement in

selected inner-city schools of one public school system. ProQuest Dissertations
and Thesis-Full Text, 764822231(UMI No. 3102820).

Public Law 107-110. (2002, January 8). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from United
States Department of Education; http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-
110.pdf

Reinen, I. J. & Plomp, T. (1993). Gender and computers: Another area of inequality in
education? In W. Pelgrum, I. J. Reinen & T. Plomp (Eds). Schools, Teachers,
Students and Computers: A Cross-National Perspective. Hague: IEA.

Schaffer, S., & Richardson, J. (2004). Supporting technology integration within a teacher
education system. Journal of Education Computing Research, 31(4), 423-435.

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

124
State of Georgia Technology Plan. (2008). Georgia technology plan. Retrieved October
15, 2008 from http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/2007-
2012%20Georgia%20State%20Technology%20Plan.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6
6CAAE343641A06B02DD1B7266C4E1E205F8E84ACFA4A3BA4&Type=D

Stoll, C. (1999). High tech heretic: Why computers don't belong in the classroom and
other reflections by a computer contrarian. New York: Doubleday.

Stoll, C. (2000). High-Tech heretic: Reflections of a computer contrarian. New York:

Anchor.

Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday.

UNESCO (1985). Technology education within the context of general education. Paris:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Taylor, L., Castro, D., & Walls, R. (2004). Tools, time, and strategies for integrating
technology across the curriculum. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 17(2),
121-136.

The Secretary Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (n.d.). What work requires
of Schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Retrieved November 21, 2008,
from wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork/whatwork.pdf

U.S. Congress. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology:

Making the connection (OTA-EHR-616). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/9541.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Enhancing education through technology.

Retrieved May 24, 2008, from www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html

U.S. Department of Education (1993). National Center for Education Statistics: A note
from the chief statistician, (No. 2, 1993).

Whale, D. (2006). Technology skills as a criterion in teacher evaluation. Journal of

Technology, 14(1), 61-74.

Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

125