Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Digital Technology Tools

Submitted by

Junior Hernandez

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Concordia University - Chicago

River Forest, Illinois

March 2021
Pro Quest
@ by Junior Hernandez, 2021

All rights reserved.

 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO

Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Digital Technology Tools

By

Junior Hernandez

has been approved

March 24th, 2021

Dr. Andrea Silverstein, Ph.D., Dissertation Chair

Dr. Tamara Korenman, Ph.D., Committee Member
Dr. Ardelle Pate, Ph.D., Committee Member
 Abstract

COVID-19 has rewritten the educational syllabus for the 2020-2021 school year. The study

aimed to discover how technology integration could inform pedagogical practices through

equity and access for all during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus of this qualitative

study aimed to understand how digital learning concepts and practices of tech-based curriculum

intertwined in the school context and beyond to support equity and access for middle school

(7-8 grades) ELL Latinx students. The Danielson Group Remote Teaching and Transcendental

Leadership model provided the conceptual framework. The set of research questions measured

the core concepts, the interception of concepts and practices, and the climate and culture for CS

implementation in the future. A basic qualitative study and content analysis guided the study.

More than half of participants with CS experience, purposely sampling. Despite participants

providing evidence-based indicators of their practical experiences, 63% had unclear perceptions

and a lack of coherence describing core concepts regarding technology integration. By contrast,

37% with CS backgrounds were able to describe technological-based core concepts. Most of the

participants’ tasks described were considered low technology integration levels as per the

SAMR model. More than 90% of the participants acknowledged that the vision for an

integrated platform was significant to build a well-rounded education. Implications for

rethinking their practices involving capacity building around Computational Thinking (CT) and

CS best practices, high levels of adequate resources that prioritize equity and access were

paramount for student achievement. The study’s findings revealed that educators in an urban

school districts with low SES did not feel they were capable to integrate technology with ELLs.

Keywords: Effective practice, quality of instruction

v
 Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my beautiful family, who has been my support and

encouragement as I journey through the coursework and dissertation process. To my children,

Junibel, Patricia, and Janior, thank you for always understanding when I had to spend weekends

and evenings writing and researching or just talking about what I discovered as I read new

literature. I have always tried to be a role model for you, and I hope you see with hard work and

commitment anything is possible. Always remember that hard work and commitment create

opportunities, not luck.

To my wife, thank you for being my rock throughout this process. You have picked up

more than your share at times to allow me to stay focused and committed to this work. You have

been my biggest cheerleader and voice of reason when I needed it. Thank you for always being

there for me and our children. Sorry for keeping the bedroom light on for so long overnight.

To my parents, thank you for always encouraging me and supporting my education. From

the time I was young till now, you have always ensured I knew the value of an education and the

doors it opens up. Thank you for pushing all four of your children towards the educational path

that opened doors for us. Special gratitude to my Mother, Aspasia De La Rosa for teaching and

modeling the Christian values, morals, and ethics going frequently to Church when I was a child.

To my Father, a police officer, rest in peace, who always wanted me to become an Engineer,

learn the English Language, know the Alphabet, and counting to Hundred by heart at an early

age, otherwise I was punished. I will always remember you, “ Cuida de Tu Vida y Tu Futuro.”

ⅵ
 Acknowledgement

I would like to acknowledge and personally thank Dr. Andrea Silverstein, my dissertation chair.

Dr. Silverstein was always committed and supportive to this study. In the background checking

me out if I was silent and committed to this study and provided a great deal of support. Thank

you Dr. Silverstein for your patience and assistance. Thank you, Dr. Silverstein, for always being

available throughout this process and building a support system for the committee to function to

the highest point.

I would like to thank Dr. Ardelle Pate, my reader and content specialist. Dr. Pate always

expected the highest standards and always kept me up to date with the current technological

practices, events, and organization locally, nationally, and internationally. I greatly appreciate the

breadth and depth of knowledge in this journey.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Tamara Korenman, my methodology

specialist. I know I can always count on Dr. Koremman for honest feedback and a push when

needed. Thank you Dr. Korenman for always being available throughout this process and making

sure that the focus of the research was reflected through effective questions that yielded the

expected results.

Lastly, to my school principal, Mr. Martinez, for his open-door policy to discuss

professional literature and providing exemplary leadership that demonstrated application of the

theory and practice of remote learning in real context. I also want to thank my amazing

colleagues who encouraged me to see more alignment from theory to practice.

ⅶ
Table of Contents

Chapter I: Introduction………….…...…………………………………………………..…........1

Background of the Study………………………………………………………………..….......9

Theoretical Foundation and Conceptual Framework………………………………..…...........15

Researcher’s Positionality……………………………………………………………………..19

Purpose of the Study…………………………………………...………………………….......20

Research Questions……………………………………………………………………….…...23

Rationale for Methodology……….…………………………………………………...…...….24

Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………………..…..24

Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study...……………………………..….25

Chapter II: Literature of Literature ………..………………………………………………….....29

Introduction to the Chapter and Background of the Problem………………………………....29

Knowledge-Economy and the New Pedagogical Paradigm……………...…………………...29

Preparing Students for Unknown Jobs………………………………………………………...30

More than Basic Skills Locally and Globally………...…………....……………………….30

Preparing Students for a job that does Not Exist……………………………………………...32

Globalization and the Pedagogical Paradigm Shift…………………………....……………...32

International Cooperation and the Four Pedagogical Paradigms……………...…….……...32

ⅷ
From Aristotle to an Emerging Pedagogical Paradigm Shift………………………….……….33

Teacher’s Motivation anProven Practices………………………………………….…………...34

Teachers’ Intrinsic Motivation and Capacity Building………………………………....…..34

Student-Centered, SAMR, and TPACK Practices…………………………………………….37

Technological Society and Social Media, Anywhere, Anytime……………………………....38

Remote Learning, Mission, Call to Action, and Funding……………………………………..39

Now and Then of Remote Learning……………………………………………..……….…..39

Call to Action in Trouble Waters…………..………………………………………………….40

Funding…………………………………………………………………………………......41

Problems that Need Understanding…………………………………………………………...41

Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, and Attitude Matter…………………………….41

Gender-Based-Attitude Professional Development………………………………………...43

Students’ Issues that Need Understanding…………………………………………...……..44

Unmet Computational Skills (CT), Empowerment, and Teacher’s Perception…………..…...45

Cognitive and Social-Emotional Skills for Professional Development (PD).......................45

Empowerment……………………………………………………………………………....46

Educators’ Perception, Self-Efficacy, and Readiness……………………….……………...47

Concluding Summary……………………………………………………………….………...49

ⅸ
Chapter III: Methodology…………….…………………………………………….…………...51

Statement of the Problem …………………...…………………………………………………...51

District Characteristics ……………….…………..……………………………………………...51

School Characteristics………….………………………………………………………………...51

Setting…………....…………………………………………………………………………....51

Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………………...52

Research Methodology ………………………………………………………………………….53

Research Design ……………………………………………………………………………....53

Sampling and Recruitment Strategy……………………………………………………...…...54

Data Collection Procedures……………. ……….…………………….…………………….…...55

Instruments…………………………………...…………………………………..………..…..55

Data Analysis Procedures………………………………………………………………….....….56

Trustworthiness of the Study……………………………………………………………….........60

Ethical Considerations……………………………………………………………………....…...60

Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………...……………......61

Summary……………………………………………………………....…….…………………...62

Chapter IV: Data Analysis and Results……….…………………………………….…………..63

ⅹ
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… …………....63

Interviews…………………………………………………………….….………....…………….63

Data Analysis…………………………………………………………..…………………....…...64

Participant Description………………………………..……………………………………..…..66

Participants’ Integration of Technology and its Impact in ELL Instruction………...………..….69

Question 1……………………...…………………………...………………….……….....……..69

Creating Programs……………………………………………………………......………...70

Challenges for Implementation……………………….……………………....….…………71

Lack of Technology Curriculum or Blueprint ……………………………………………..71

No Device or Wi-Fi………………………….……………...……………….…....………...71

Lack of assessment Tools………………....………………………………………………..71

Differentiation and Motivation…………………………………………………...………..72

Question 2………………………………………....…………………..………………………....72

Anonymous Survey……………………...…………………………….……………..…….72

Social-Emotional, then Cognitive……………………..………………………………......73

Attitude and Collaboration…………………………………………..………………..…...74

Innovation and Creativity…………………………………………….………………..….74

ⅹⅰ
 Collaboration and Building Relationships………………………..…………………….....75

Challenging and Frustrating………………………………………..……………………...75

Lack of Access……………………………………………………..……………………...76

Question 3…………………………………………………....…………………………………..77

Digital Divide and Digital Use Divide……………………………………………………..78

Digital Divide, But With Support………………………..…………………………...….…79

Distraction, Login, and Navigating the Web…………….……………………………....…80

Instructional Delivery, Assessment, and Resources………………………………………..80

Lack of Strategic Assessment………………………………………………………….…...81

Limited Resources……………………………………………………………………....….81

Language Barrier and Home Support………………………………………....………………...82

Question 4………………………………………………………………………………………..83

Face-to-Face Learning benefits……………………………………………………………..83

Remote Learning Benefits…………....…………………………………………………...……..85

Access and Sharing…………………………………………………….………….…..…....85

Learning Together…………………………………………………………………...……..86

Ubiquitous Exposure………………………………………………….……………....…....86

ⅹⅱ
Challenges…………………………………...…………………………………………………..87

Teachers…………………………………………………………………………...…….....88

Students………………………………………………………………………………….....89

Online Discipline………………………………………………………………………......89

Parent Support………………………………………………………………………..….....90

Remote Learning Development Yet……………………………………………...........................91

Persistence and Positive Attitudes on Demand…………………………………….…..….91

Reimagining the School Mission…………………………………………………….........93

Equity Access and High-Quality Tools …………………………………………………..93

Re-Imagine Pedagogy …………………………………………………………………….93

Persistence and Adaptability ……………………………………………………………...94

Understanding Core Concepts around Technology Integration ……………………………...….95

Question 5……………………………………………………………………………………......95

Computer Science Creates and Designs…………………………………………………..96

Active Learning and Observable Behaviour…………………………………………........97

Challenging Concept………………………………………………………………….......97

Issue of Equality and Financial Status…………………………………………..……………….99

ⅹⅲ
Question 6 ……………………………………………………………………………………….99

Equity, Finance, and the Digital Divide…………………………....……………………..101

Differentiation of Instruction……………………………………………………..……...102

Challenges Remain…………………………………………………………...………….104

Technology-Based Curriculum Planning ……………………………………………....……...104

Question 7……...…………………………....………………………………………………… 104

Benefits…………………………………………………………………….……………105

Networking and Evidence-Based for Learning ..……………………………………….106

Motivation and Ownership …………………………………………………………….106

Building Back Better…………………………………………………………………...107

Planning is Challenging ………………………………………………………………..107

Essential Technology Skills …………………………………………………………....108

Teacher Recommendations………………………………………………………………......108

Accessibility in All Subject Areas ………………………………………..……………109

Social Media and Education …………………………………………………………………...110

Question 8 ...……………………………….…………………………………………………...110

Part of the Lesson Plan But .............................................................................................110

ⅹⅰⅴ
 Easy Access Network…………………………………………………………………..110

Inappropriate Language………………………………………………………………...113

Question 9……………………………...…………………………………………….………....114

Satisfaction…………………….……………………………………………………….114

Challenges……………………………………………….……………….………..…...116

Rethinking Specialist’s Role, Services, and Planing……………………....……....…...116

Connecting the Elements of technology-Based Benefits and Challenges ……………………..117

Question 10………………………………....…………………………………………………..117

Healthy Infrastructure and Equity ……………………………………………………..117

A Call to Action………………………………………………………...……………...119

Summary of Findings………………………………………………………………………...120

Chapter V: Summary, Implication, and Conclusions ………………………………………....126

Introduction…………………………………………………………………..………..……..126

Discussion and Interpretation………………………………………………………………..128

Summary……………………………………………………………………………………..128

ⅹⅴ
Theme1: Participants Lack of Awareness of Technology-Based Core Concepts…………....129

Computer Science(CS)……………………………………….………………………...128

Equity Access…………………………………………………………………………..131

Social Media……………………………………………………………………….......132

Theme 2: Negatively Impact in Students’ Achievement and School Improvement………..133

Collaborative and Supportive Culture Matter…………………………....……………...…...134

Theme 3: Previous Experiences in CS Facilitate Higher Level of integration……...….…....134

Divide, Use Divide, Equity-Access Still Exist……………...………....………………...…..135

Educators with Computer Science Experiences…………………………………………….135

TPACK and 5 R’s ……………………………………………………………………....135

Coding with Scratch………………………………………………………………….....136

Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)...........................................................................................136

Learning Management System (LMS) and Socio Emotional Learning (SEL)……………....137

ⅹⅵ
Educators with Less Experience………………………………………………………….….137

Theme 4: In-Person Leaning, the benefits of remote Learning, and the School Mission…...138

Benefits of Remote Learning…………………………………………………………...138

Knowledge of the Learner and Equity at Risk……………………………………………….139

The Positive Mindset………………………………………………………………………...139

School Mission……………………………………………………………………….……...140

Relation to the Existing Literature………………………………………...………..………..141

What is a “ Renewable Task” and Why Does It Matter?.........................................................141

Theme 5: Motivated Personnel to Integrate Tech, But an Equitable Culture is Urgent…….141

Technology-Based Curriculum Planning…………………………………………….…141

The Task, the Network, and Accommodation ………………………………………....142

Technology-Based Differentiation………………………………………....…………..143

Theoretical Implications……………………………………………………………………..143

ⅹⅶ
 Practical Implications ……………………....……………………………………………....145

Future Implications……………………………………....…………………………………..146

Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………………………..146

Recommendations for Future Research……………………....……………………………...147

Recommendations for Practices………………………………....…………………………...148

Contribution of the Study…………………………………………………………………….149

Conclusion……………..……………....…………………………………………………….151

References……………………………..………………....……………....…………………….153

Appendix A: Informed Consent to Participate in Interviews………….…….…………………165

Appendix B: Site Permission…………………………………………………....……………..166

Appendix C: Individual Interview Protocol and Questions…………………………...………..167

Appendix D: Educator Invitation and Recruitment Letter……………………………..….…...169

ⅹⅷ
List of Tables

Table 1: Teacher and Student's Standards for the 21st Century Skills………..…………..….......31

Table 2: Demographics of Participants………………………………...…………………..…….68

List of Figures

Figure 1: Teacher’s Description of How to Use Technology with ELLs (Question 1)..........…..69

Figure 2: Teacher’s Description of How to Use Technology with ELLs (Question 2)......…..…72

Figure 3: Barriers for Technology Implementation with ELLs (Question 3)...................…..…...78

Figure 4: Face-to-Face and Challenges of Remote and its Impact in the School Mission……...84

Figure 5: Meaning of Computer Science (Question 5)...............................................……..…....96

Figure 6: The Overarching Themes From the Study Around the Research Questions …...... ..129

ⅹⅸ
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Introduction to the Research Topic

The advent of a digital revolution has begun at a local, national, state, and global level.

As described by the United States Office of Educational Technology (OET, 2017), this revolution

is changing the way people teach, learn, communicate, make decisions, and earn a living through

instant collaboration and interaction in context anywhere and anytime. It is imperative to

re-imagine education and pedagogy by empowering the learners through effective teaching

practices in a strong solid infrastructure and under a collaborative-based rich culture (NETP,

2017). In light of the current state of education with COVID-19 pandemic, New York Governor

Mario Cuomo demanded practitioners and scholars to re-imagine educational system by

integrating and using technology effectively to provide more opportunities to students in

reducing educational inequities and K-12 barriers in English Language Learners and students

with disabilities (Finn, 2020). The Federal Register (2018), the official journal of the federal

government of the United States, suggests that classroom and schools must be equipped with

comprehensive and sustainable systems to use Informational Technology (IT) effectively. This

recommendation seeks to increase access to educational opportunities, improve outcomes, and

lead to greater equity for all children, regardless if and how the technology itself changes. At the

onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Education of New York City deployed

approximately 300,0000 computers for students to use during the remote learning end year

school closure International Society Technology Education (ISTE, 2020). The Federal Register

also states that every student, regardless the socioeconomic status (SES) deserves an effective

teachers and an effective leader at the school ,who embrace a technology-based rich environment

to enhance students’ achievement for academic success, at school, work, life, and beyond.

1
Therefore, enabling human achievement in the digital revolution would require all organizations

and interested stakeholders (i.e., Microsoft, Google, Zoom, NYC DOE) to empower all learners

through equitable access strategic equity plans (e.g., pre-and in-service teachers’ professional

developments), professional development through OER, reaching proficiency levels through

student-centered practices, and last but not least, re-imagining and transforming the academic

workplace (i.e., integrate more digital accessibility for inclusion).

More equity and access can transform and empower learning from passive to active

learning, especially in Hispanic students. To remove those barriers to students’ achievement and

equal opportunity, the National Educational Technology Plan (NTEP, 2017) alongside with

Future Ready Schools (FRS, 2018) launched new initiatives to explain the “what” and “how” of

digital technology-based environment impact curriculum, instruction, and assessment. FRS

(2018) provides guidance on connectivity devices, and quality digital learning resources. With an

appropriate infrastructure, circumstances, and context school districts can thrive in a globally

connected world. Just as FRS (2018), the NETP (2017) articulates a vision of equity, active use

and collaborative leadership to make everywhere, all-the-time learning possible. NETP (2017)

and FRS (2018) seek to have all stakeholders and practitioners promote and support meaningful

practices (e.g., collaborative PD, authentic student-centered activities, constructivism) with the

use of digital devices as a way to transform and revolutionize education that empowers and

transforms learners in this ever-changing economy. It is imperative that all learners including

practitioners learn with technologies and understand how to use it through student-centered

activities (Tondeur, van-Braak, Ertmer, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2016). While inequity and

access continue to be a challenge in software, hardware, and Internet access (i.e., home and

school) as it was noticed in COVID-19 pandemic, the effective use of technology is the catalyst

2
to be transformative of learning experiences. Appropriate use of technology for active learning,

creativity, work, and life-long learning is more significant than access and connectivity to engage

all learners as new emerging technologies take place (NETP, 2017). Equity and access can

advance professional development (PD) and openly educational resources (OER) to strive for

more digital accessibility for inclusion.

Professional development and openly educational resources must be at the forefront as

never before for digital transformation. Partnership for 21st Century Learning suggests the

importance of closing disparities in access to effective teaching through PD, given that the

Supreme Court in Apple Inc. V. Pepper et al. (2019) sympathetically voiced the importance of

equitable access of digital technology for empowerment.

Partnership for 21st Century Learning emphasizes the need for re-imagining the

educational experience to create a positive momentum toward making 21st Century learning a

reality for all learners including the teacher as learner (Garza, 2019). The implication for practice

is that for digital technology be transformative, educator-focused professional development that

impacts teacher-based knowledge of resources and technology-based assessment in instruction,

and curriculum that is paramount to educate the new generations of learners through creativity,

collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and innovation. Garza argues that to fulfill the

power and promise of the 21st Century learning skills for all students a collective vision locally

developed, but globally positioned, must serve as North Star for system transformation. Learners

are now part of a digitally interconnected world locally and globally through the Internet (Garza,

2019), and with the onset of COVID-19 interconnectedness and collaboration for continued

socio-emotional and academic achievement revealed to be paramount. Consortium of School

Networking (CoSN, 2016) revealed the need for supporting educators with knowledge and skills

3
around digital technologies in an individual, collaborative technology-rich culture. Building

capacity with high quality resources is paramount. Title II Part A, Title IV-A, and CARES Act

(2020) funds assist effective integration of technology into curricula and instruction or to

implement technology-supported, content-specific instructional practice as per Educational

Secondary Educational Act (OET, 2017) and ISTE (ISTE, 2020). Digitalization can benefit

professional development through Professional Learning (PLCs) networks (i.e. Google

Classroom, Microsoft Teams). Digitalization has brought many benefits to consumers and

business, but it has also generated challenges to policy makers who are struggling to respond to

innovate solution of inclusion and equity at U.S. Supreme Court.

Accesses of digital services and consumer welfare for all Americans are greatly

supported at the U.S. Supreme Court. In Apple Inc. v. Pepper et al. (2019), liberal justice

legislators argued how Americans use digital technologies to purchase a concert ticket, access

educational tools online, and even to donate to charities. “There’s an app for that” has become

part of the 21st-centuryAmerican lexicon.” (Higgins, 2019, p.4). In a five to four resolution,

Brett Cavanaugh, joined by court’s liberal justices, agreed that Apple iPhone users may sue

Apple of monopoly power for limiting consumer power for technological choices, development

of innovations, and charging higher-than competitive prices for apps created by developers

(Grant, 2019; Higgins, 2019). The United States Congress in “1890 was a desire to put an end to

great aggregations of capital because of the helplessness of the individual before them.” (Grant,

2019, p. 4). It is worth noticing that the Supreme Court strongly believes the power of digital

technology as the catalyst to transform the educational setting, workplace, digital economy,

generated social inclusion, and even promote civic responsibility. This “precedent creates an

unprincipled and economically senseless distinction among monopolistic retailer” (Higgins,

4
2019, p.14). Grant (2019) argued that the antitrust law has been an economic reason supported in

the “Sherman Act” of 1890 to protect and safeguard consumers against extreme monopoly

prices. If Apple won the case, it may cause disruptive behavior among stakeholders in low SES

communities in decreasing new opportunities and challenges defined in the CR-SE Framework

from the New York State Department of Education. Equitable access for All to digital services is

becoming a reality in the 21st Century knowledge economy. For more than 100 years, community

of colors children’s families have been neglected to thrive in educational attainment due to

complex bias and economic inequality in this country’s history, culture, and institutions

(Lamberti, Lyons-Thomas, and Meyers, 2018; National Association Press, 2019). Online

Educational Resources Commons (2018), a public digital library of open educational resources

describes OER as freely accessible, openly licensed text, media, and others digital assets for

teaching, learning, assessment, and research purposes. OER is an Open Access, under the terms

of the Creative Commons Attribution License, continues to be an excellent educational resource

to build capacity not only for teachers, but for providers, leaders, students, and families locally

and nationally (NETP, 2017; Wiley and Hilton, 2018). OER identifies opportunities for states

and districts to innovate and to provide better educational outcomes at all levels, including for

those who are high-performing and low-performing students. The time has come to close the

achievement gap in our under-served districts with large Hispanic populations as well as other

minorities with low socio-economic status (SES). With OER, Common Core Learning Standards

(CCLS) and the Next Generation of Science Standards (NGSS) structured with high-quality

instructional materials for educators, practitioners, and all stakeholders can now best support

learners in decision making instantly, anywhere, and anytime in schools and beyond the school

walls. In addition, OER can be retained, revised, remixed, re-used, and redistributed (5 R’s) in

5
different formats such as, (1) lesson plans, (2) student tasks, (3) projects, and (4) more fully

constructed in a collaborative-based socio-cultural model of digital practice (Caswell, Henson,

Jensen and Wiley, 2008; Wiley and Hilton, 2018). States and districts may use Title IV, Part A

funds to help educators better discover, use, and share digital content as well as to train educators

to find and adapt relevant OERs as per ESEA (OET, 2017). If iPhone users lost the lawsuit, OER

functionality and practices in the educational field for low SES communities may be deeply

affected by inequitable access for improved academic achievement and engagement, for

under-represented communities assisting public schools whose vast majority are Tittle I schools.

Carretero, Punie, and Vuorikavi (2017) argued that citizens must adapt themselves to use digital

technologies in a confident, critical, collaborative, and creative way to achieve goals related to

work, learning, leisure, inclusion, and participation in the digital society. The Supreme Court

seems to understand the need of building a robust digital national economy integrating the most

vulnerable citizen (i.e., people of colors) in the U.S. of America to have access to attain an

education, i.e., the minimum of a High School diploma and access to post-secondary

opportunities for life-long learning and civic opportunities.

Reaching proficiency levels for the ever-changing technology through student-centered

practices, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE, 2018) identified students’ needs

to develop proficiency and fluency in integrating technology literacy, to develop more rigorous

and creative practices to use digital tools in the classroom to create a product, to critique, and to

analyze a variety of purposes in teaching and learning, workplace, and life. Active learning

requires learners to explore, create, connect, and reflect upon their learning experiences

immersed in a socio-culturally technology-based academic workplace integrated by

Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, and Generations X, Y, and Z (Fogg, 2018). It is imperative that

6
classroom teachers integrate specific skills and habits for both print and digital literacy in their

lesson plans. However, recent studies indicate that teachers are not equipped to understand how

to use the technology (Tondeur, van-Braak, Ertmer, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2016). To lead

school achievement and improvement for all students, internal and external stakeholders must

work collaboratively to support teachers in seizing opportunities of how they can integrate

technology so all students become active learners instead of passive learners (Albert and Emery,

2017). These proficiency levels can facilitate more productive interactions in the academic

workplace, and beyond the school walls (e.g., remote learning during Covid-19 pandemic). Other

than closing disparities with engaging learning to raise and proficiency levels, human capital

development would require equitable access to supportive school and classroom environments.

Students have changed the academic workplace radically as never before. Today’s

students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach. With the

emerging generations of X’s and Y’s (Fogg, 2018), the urgency to change the pedagogy (e.g.,

from behaviorism science to neuroscience) is at the forefront as never before. The New York

state guidelines for Culturally Responsive–Sustaining Education (CR-SE) pedagogies consider

learners’ culture and family background as assets (i.e., knowledge, experiences) to leverage

effective teaching and learning practices (Meyers et. al, 2018). The CR-SE framework aims to

empower marginalized communities that has been neglected for decades to engage in social

emotional learning to gain a critical lens to view inequality systems of access, power, and

privilege (Meyers et. al., 2018). It is worth noticing that during the COVID-19 pandemic, many

students, teachers, and families in under-served neighborhoods were performing in remote

learning under stressful conditions (i.e., curfew, protesting against policing brutality, looting, and

unemployment). In order to tackle the tenets of knowledge during the moment of uncertainty,

7
Maslow’s (1943; 1954; 1971) Hierarchy of Needs should be considered (i.e., Social Emotional

Learning [SEL]), as well as Bloom’s Taxonomy (Mcleod, 2020).

As noted by Fogg (2018), educational practitioners need to break down the academy

workplace into intergenerational team structures to facilitate collaboration and conversation

among the four generations that have been impacted by the cultural influences (e.g., Great

Depression, World War II, Me Generation, women’s liberation, etc.) of their times. The

Framework for 21st Century Learning positions the educational practitioner with the goal to

facilitate students with the knowledge, skills, and relationships to thrive in today’s digital and

globally interconnected world (Garza, 2019), and more importantly, in moments of emotional

stress. New learning (i.e., knowledge and skills) must be intentionally planned, to purposely use

and integrate technology, utilize technology tools application in real-world connections (i.e.,

project-based learning) to make learning relevant, personalized, and engaging. The International

Society of Technology in Education (ISTE, 2018) suggested that with the influx of digital

pedagogy, classroom teachers must nurture specific literacy skills from high-quality content and

habits that are continually evolving if they are to be proactive in a progressive global economy

that serves students with low to moderate SES status.

In conclusion, to empower and develop human achievement in a digitally interconnected

world, organizations, practitioners, and general stakeholders must work collaboratively to

facilitate equitable and access to digital tools, infuse professional development to practitioners

through high quality OER, achieve proficiency levels through student-centered practices in

CR-SE settings, and transform the academic workplace by integrating intentionally, strategically,

and individualized plans to narrow disparities among racial and ethnic groups not only for the

individual benefit, but for the nation.

8
 Background of the Study

The focus of the study is to explore teacher’s perception (e.g., interception of concepts

and pedagogical practices) of digital tools around planning, teaching delivery, and sharing

content knowledge in teaching Latinx students in English Language Art and Math. The targeted

district vision is to expand K-12 STEM learning opportunities via LEGO Robotics and Computer

Science (CS) practices by a General Electric Program to support STEAM instruction for the next

three years. This initiative aims to enhance Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

(STEM) competency levels integration in all subject areas under a rigorous CR-SE atmosphere.

It is anticipated to ignite passion among students for problem solving with perseverance,

collaboration, critical thinking, communication, creativity, and innovation to transform the local

and global community.

The primary focus of this study is to understand how digital learning concepts and

practices of tech-based curriculum intertwine in school environments and beyond to support

equity and access for all. Secondly, it examines how teacher’s beliefs or awareness regarding

technology-based integration in crisis inform future planning, delivery of instruction, and sharing

for middle school (7-8 grades) Latinx students. Lastly, it investigates how school climate (i.e.,

attitude) and culture among internal stakeholders can support and inform equitable strategic

access plans embedded in a new emerging innovative pedagogy. Although the integration of

digital technology can start in the classroom and continue beyond school walls anywhere and

anytime (NETP, 2017), integration can be affected by many other circumstances (e.g., context,

infrastructure, long-term closures during a pandemic). To mitigate the challenges of technology

integration at the local district, the following themes are discussed: impact of digital technology

before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, intentionally designed, the need of local digital

9
integration in teaching and learning, effective technology application that drives achievement in

low SES, and urgency to close the digital divide for Latinx students in SES populations and

students from more affluent populations.

Data on the emerging impact of digital educational technology suggest workable

solutions. Local and national government officials and researchers have worked together to

suggest proven and effective measures to leverage schools and workplace practices related to

digital technology. Teachers and educational administrators must enhance their perceptions and

students’ agency through deep and robust coherent strategic planning embedded in a digital-rich

culture in context. Hong, et al. (2016) argued that equitable pedagogy, knowledge, perceptions

and its influence of computer science (CS) among practitioners must be a top priority to

encourage students in underserved districts to acquire the computational skills and mitigate the

bias due to the lack of insufficient encouragement. Detailed, and intentionally designed lesson

plans in and out of the classroom can accelerate, amplify, and expand effective teaching and

learning practices that support different kinds of learners through art projects, writing, and media

projects to mention a few (NETP, 2017). This transformation of learning suggests a

rich-sociocultural practice embedded in innovation and change along with effective pre- and

in-service professional development for educators under an effective school context

infrastructure (Cruszczynska et al., 2013). As noted by Coiro (2012) and Willingham (2015),

digital technology is impacting pedagogy, motivating students, and impacting progress. Fox and

Jones (2018) described how several states and districts are already defining the concept and

function of accessible instructional materials through equitable access pathways. Fox and Jones

argued how high-quality professional development and teacher’s attitudes influenced students’

engagement as students made presentations of their project-based learning (i.e., social justice,

10
STEAM applications) to their community at large. It is worth noticing that emerging

technologies require proactive measures and effective PD on behalf of the practitioners to

mitigate bias through CR-SE and purposely designed lesson plans. Digital competencies go

beyond using a software or a hardware but integrating 21st Century skills (i.e., collaboration,

creativity, critical thinking, communication) in all subject areas to impact school improvement,

work, and life-long learning in an interconnected digital world (Carretero et al., 2017).

Intentionally Designed Lesson Plan and Generational Groups

Designing effective lesson plans that meet academic and workplace needs, integrated by

the different generational cohort members (e.g., Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, X’s, Y’s, Z’s) are

a top priority for every educational leader in charge of school improvement. Current trends

involve a complex life and work environment with challenges such as: automatization (i.e.,

Artificial Intelligent [AI]) and the changing nature of the work job conditions (i.e., hiring

contract workers, fewer benefits). Kennedy and Poland (2018) argued that 25% of Latinos and

13% of Blacks will lose job opportunities in the field of transportation, food services, or

positions with repeated physical tasks as a result of the automatization associated to the

knowledge economy. The significance of the above findings reveals that all learners need to

think creatively instantly (i.e., elaborate, refine, evaluate their ideas), and work creatively with

others (i.e., to develop, implement, and communicate ideas to others, receive group input and

peer feedback) through interaction with other peers, experts, and global connections.

The Need for Local Digital Integration in Teaching and Learning

At a local U.S. Eastern school district in New York City, teachers, administrators, and

community-based partnerships collaborated to develop district goals to close the digital use

divide around technology. Teachers, administrators, and technology providers including Google

11
educational specialists met twice to discuss school improvement in a technology-based rich

environment. District school superintendent’s initiatives focused on pedagogy beliefs and school

culture of technology-rich learning experiences. At the meeting, ISTE (2017) practices and social

characteristics shaped the nature of the technology plan that supports the district school vision,

action plan for digital technology integration, the use of digital data to inform instruction and

decision-making about curriculum, pedagogy, and learner empowerment. Some of the attendees

utilized the recent school quality review (i.e., an annual evaluation of accredited professionals

and local district administrators) to suggest and incorporate indicators of improvement (e.g.,

English Language Learners [ELLs]), and general population to demonstrate low reading levels

for the past few years as evidence in formative and summative assessment data). Among

participants were STEM Happens Network (SHN), Computer Science for All staff members,

Local Educational Agency (LEA) providers who elicited the need to support a shared vision of

the citywide Department of Education (NYCDOE) in curriculum and instruction to integrate a

more robust curriculum based in Science, Technology, Engineering, Arst, and Math (STEAM) in

order to close the achievement gap and promote equity and excellence in education.

Effective technology integration facilitates achievement in low SES. When teachers

integrate digital technology effectively, students have the opportunity to acquire the challenges

and skills (i.e., knowledge contributor, computational skills, and global collaborator) of the 21st

Century digital economy (ISTE, 2018). Darling-Hammond, Zielezinski, and Goldman (2014)

claimed that the idea of access in terms of getting the digital device and its connectivity is no

longer enough to bridge the gap of the digital divide among students living in low SES, under-

resourced neighborhoods. Darling-Hammond et al. (2014), agreed that there is an urgency for

schools to use technology in low SES to support problem-solving, differentiating, authentic

12
applications, analyzing, and synthesizing information from multiple sources, as well as tools that

develop communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. They agreed that it

should be a high priority over activities that only include basic skills tasks, memorizing facts,

drilling or applying rules.

There is urgency in closing the digital use divide in low SES where underlying skills are

required to thrive in the future workforce. While many students have access to digital devices

(e.g., iPads, computers, phones), many lack proper cognitive use of such devices and have

limited computational skills. Fox and Jones (2018) argued that digital technologies can leverage

the playing field for struggling students when practitioners infuse equity and access to the use of

digital tools and facilitate students’ ability to use the tools to support their learning needs. The

New York City Computer Science for All initiative (2015) and SHN suggested that underserved

students must be nurtured in developing soft skills (i.e., collaboration, critical thinking) and

technological skills (i.e., programming) to thrive in the future as life-long learners.

Darling-Hammond et al. (2014) argued that many students with low SES (i.e., eligible students

for free or reduced-priced lunch) are hard-pressed compared to their affluent counterparts to find

these opportunities to use technology tools to engage them in authentic tasks that support their

learning development. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (2018) reported that students

with low SES are negatively affected at home, school, and neighborhoods (i.e., due to

homelessness, inadequate nutrition, unsafe neighborhoods) starting in early childhood and

throughout their academic career. These environmental significantly impact on students’

concentration and memory to learn, further lowering their access to quality education. The

massive influx of technologies to support our nation's underserved students require educational

systems to become more sustainable and culturally diverse in order to promote equity and

13
excellence in education (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014). More personalized learning,

unparalleled content, unlimited accesses, and cultivating a culture of building literacy is needed

(Benning & Tucker, 2018).

Digital technology is an emerging theme in this the 21st Century economy. Research

around learners in the digital era is just beginning and may need more critical examination as the

body of theoretical literature is still growing (Gallardo-Echenique et al., 2015). Wiley and Hilton

(2018) argued the concepts of open educational practices and the difficulties of conducting

research on the topic of open pedagogy. Wiley and Hilton states that there is a great momentum

to support the moral aspect of education and urge practitioners, policymakers, and interested

groups to work collaboratively to seize opportunities to support OER-enabled pedagogy and

renewable assignments (i.e., students create artifacts in public using open resources whose value

is beyond the creator's learning initiative) as effective practices. Weller (2013) stated that more

than ever-abundant open content (i.e., videos, podcast) places emphasis on the network and the

learners’ connections with it. “Open pedagogy has become closely associated with the creation,

use, and sharing of open educational resources (OER)” (p. 134). As noted by the Danielson

Framework for Teaching (2015), practitioners need to identify effective practices embedded in

appropriate lesson plans that simultaneously combine and strengthen, (1) content knowledge and

pedagogy, and (2) the knowledge of the most appropriate use of technologies that enhance

learning experiences for all learners. Therefore, knowing when, how, and why digital technology

will be used in shaping the learning of every student is the utmost important aspect of the

research prospectus.

14
 Theoretical Foundation and Conceptual Framework

Numerous accredited professional organizations such as the National Council of Teachers

of English (NCTE) of Illinois, FRS, ISTE, CoSN, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and

Information Fluency Continuum (IFC) have been continuously advocating for more vigorous and

creative ways to use digital technology in the classroom. These accredited organizations have

suggested specific sets of skills and practices to meet the 21st Century digital economy. These

include the use of digital technology to create, critique, analyze, and evaluate print and digital

technology in the classroom. As a result, classroom teachers are being encouraged to infuse

specific skills and studying habits routed in computational skills (ISTE, 2018).

Danielson’s Framework for Teaching is essential in order to understand and to

continually improve the learning process and goals for education. Both Danielson teaching

framework and Gardiner’s theory (i.e., transcendental leadership theory) are relevant to improve

teachers’ perception and practices in the classroom. Danielson (2015) suggested that teachers are

responsible for demonstrating effectiveness through evidence and artifacts, while Gardiner

(2006) suggested that there is a need to empower students to become lifelong learners as they

adapt themselves to the provisional changes in the 21st Century digital economy, personally,

organizationally, and globally. The primary tenet of these theories is not only to guide and inform

research efforts, but also to contribute and improve professional practices that benefit all

stakeholders and shareholders (i.e., teachers, students, administrators) for work, life, and

ultimately lead to school improvement.

Emerging technologies in a digital economy require effective leaders to empower learners

in and out of the classroom walls to work collaboratively through instant reflections and

feedback. Gardiner’s framework (2006) theory suggested we need inclusive settings that draw on

15
the sharing of information in a meaningful way among constituents. As noted by Gardiner

(2006), the transactional theory of evolution, theories of practice, and governance argues, “The

complex problems of our world today will not be resolved by the consciousness that created

them.” (p. 72). It means that practitioners need to see the learners as stakeholder themselves with

a sense of agency to improve their community. Effective leaders are encouraged to design lesson

plans with the purpose for knowledge construction to emerge from the instant and live online

interaction among active learners who appreciate the power of digital, media, and disciplinary

literacies practices. Effective leaders facilitate Digital Citizenship SEL practices as a medium for

the individual learner to acquire core competencies to recognize and manage emotions, set and

achieve positive goals, appreciate the perspectives of others, establish and maintain positive

relationships, make responsible decisions, and handle interpersonal situations constructively

(ISTE, 2020). Learning the sciences require students to be motivated, have self-confidence, work

collaboratively, and share information responsibly and ethically. Media (i.e., recognizing the

power of pictures, videos…) and disciplinary literacies (i.e., identifying, accessing, evaluating,

and re-communicating information) can empower learners to become an agent of change not

only at their local level, but globally to thrive in today challenging complex world.

Effective practitioners of the 21st Century must be passionate, talented, and prepared to

teach under a constructivist, student-centered approach with technology-rich environments. To

challenge the status quo of the 21st Century skills (i.e., divergent thinking, social skills,

collaborative skills) and to confront the challenges ahead (i.e., Artificial Intelligence, evolving

technologies, long term school closures) educators as never before need to integrate more

student-centered activities where learners think creatively, work collaboratively, and where they

see failure as an opportunity to learn (Albert and Emery, 2017; Kivunja, 2014). As digital

16
technology emerges, practitioners can facilitate a springboard for opportunities for all students in

the classroom, and consequently improve their practices. As teachers transfer knowledge to the

learner, students and citizen will now have the possibility to gain the skills that will help not only

to make them better educated individuals but also better citizens who will be able to make a

greater contribution to commerce and to civil life in the digital economy of the 21st Century

(Kivunja, 2014). Since classroom practices are influenced by the teacher’s pedagogical belief

about technology integration, more meaningful professional development (e.g., individual and

collaborative-based team approach in context) with authentic content is needed to remove

barriers (e.g., scheduling, lack of PD, poor infrastructure) for fully integration in context

(Tondeur et al., 2016). It is worth noting that the 21st Century skills (i.e., collaboration,

communication) and constructive pedagogy described above are and will be the ever 21st Century

skills for all times. Practitioners’ optimal goal must be to reach out for rigorous learning

supported by project-based performance tasks that embrace the intellectual, the inter-, and

intrapersonal skills (i.e., Bloom Taxonomy). In such an atmosphere, students and teachers

become co-learners and creators of content knowledge through iterative, vibrant, and instant

interactional networks ubiquitously.

School superintendent’s goal and shared vision for the district-wide effort in the first and

second meetings at the local school aimed to lead school improvement by increasing students’

achievement levels for all students through an evidence-based, technology-rich environment,

having equitable access plans enriched by professional development. Currently, STEAM

Happens Network (SHN) in partnership with City University of New York (CUNY) have just

begun advancing the knowledge and integration of STEM in the school district by building

capacity to practitioners and school leaders in charge of school improvement. SHN informed by

17
the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine aims to promote active

engagement, transform practice, and re-engineer educational practices through student-centered

practices (Fernandez, 2020). As evidenced in the local quality review report (QR) and the

Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP, 2017), a consistent need for students to hold deep

peer-to-peer discussions linked to complex texts and advanced literacies, and higher thinking

across disciplines, and citation of evidence, among other competencies aligned to the CCLS,

were in demand for school improvement. Both Danielson Framework (2015) and Gardiner

(2006) transcendental theories alongside technology integration can generate evidence-based

outcome to lead effective practices and school improvement. Transcendental theory, as drawn

from Gardiner’s discussions, surely addressed the school’s needs and suggested an immediate

course of action to research teachers’ perceptions of content and pedagogical practices around

digital technology in the field of educational leadership.

Gardiner’s (2006) findings suggested more learners’ engagement and motivation through

the celebration of creative, divergent thinking, and willingness to serve the will of collective

consciousness as determined by the group. Digital reading through digital networks can improve

not only pedagogy and knowledge of resources but also can foster a culture for collaboration,

engaging students in learning and assessment, while maintaining accurate records and

communication with families and other constituencies (Swallow and Olofson, 2017). Adherence

to transcendental theory facilitates a revolutionary frame of viewing human interaction in

organizational settings. It is not surprising that striving for literacy (i.e., print or digital) needs to

be the priority in action research practice in order for students to challenge their current

assumptions (i.e., transformative learning theory) through rational and non-coercive dialogue as

a means to make change for the better. The primary tenet of these theories is not only to guide

18
and inform research efforts, but also to contribute and improve professional practices that benefit

teachers, students, and ultimately school improvement.

Both Danielson and Gardiner’s theories of effective teaching and transcendental

leadership respectively offer a way of empowering all students to become life-long learners as

they adapt themselves to the emerging changes of the 21st Century skills. “There is no single

theory that one can meaningfully use in dealing with, say, academic achievement or challenges

of poverty” (Imenda, 2014, p.189). There are perhaps other theories that can offer more

comprehensive roadmaps to discover and find more meaning to the subject’s observations (i.e.,

Mezirow’s theory, constructivism theory). As noted by Christie et al. (2015), Mezirow’s theory

can be a catalyst to transform learning into active practice through the development of individual

consciousness within rational discourse rather than force. Active and transformative learning

should seize a springboard of opportunities where learners can critique the thought process based

on complete and accurate information, evidence-based, and last but not least access arguments

objectively (Christie et al., 2015).

Researcher’s Positionality

Being an educator and having a bachelor in Structural Civil Engineering, I have always

wondered how K-12 education supports the learning of Engineering in ELLs through the

Sciences and Mathematics to solve present and future complex problems that humans are facing

today locally, but they may impact globally. Engineering development results in human-centered

Computing Artifacts developed from the Engineering design process (ED) involving scientific

behaviors and application of discrete Mathematics (e.g., Algebra and arithmetic, reasoning on

real world problems), and technological literacies tools. As the district thought to infuse STEAM

practices, I often wondered how pedagogy would look like in teaching and learning remotely

19
when delivering or sharing content to promote achievement in my ELL population?

Rationale and Purpose

The purpose of this study is to explore teacher’s perceptions of technology integration in

teaching and learning remotely. The study aims to discover how this integration can inform

pedagogical practices through equity and access for all right before and after the COVID-19

pandemic. Fox and Jones (2018) argued that temporary and emerging digital technologies have

impacted pedagogy and curriculum while practitioners, students, and policymakers thrive for

new and improved and proven practices along with a set of skills and knowledge to meet the

needs of an innovative knowledge economy.

As noted by Kivunja (2014), students of the 21st Century must be learning the core

subject skills, motivation, career, and life skills. Kivunja argued that new literacies are rapidly

changing and influencing digital literacy in pedagogy, curriculum development, and ultimately

students’ experiences and performances as students engage and become producers and

consumers of knowledge. Katz and Levine (2015) argued that formal learning environments have

not yet adapted to the types of digital media innovation that would support optimal learning and

child development. As noted by Tondeur et al. (2016), the relational use of technology in view of

teacher pedagogical belief and school culture is a complex issue since those involved in

instructional practices mismatch with those who want to lead educational changes. Therefore, the

issue of technology integration requires a collaborative-based approach among stakeholders.

Leading United States economic growth in local communities, nationwide, and

internationally requires transformation and re-imagining the roles of digital pedagogy in the

classroom context. Coiro (2015) argued that practitioners (e.g., classroom teachers) have not

predicted the long-term effects of the information communication technology (ICT) and its

20
impacts in the classrooms and beyond school walls. Teachers’ awareness of exemplary digital

practices in the classroom and remotely, an implication for designing high-quality digital

activities alongside structured discussion protocols among students (e.g., think-pair-share,

think-ink-share, and see-think-wonder to mention a few), are at the forefront as never before to

generate more equity and excellence. As Merriam (2009) explained, real-life experiences are

socially constructed with human interaction using multiple forms of data. Ninety percent of the

digital data today has been created in the last two years (Kennedy and Poland, 2018). The

Internet is becoming a means of building a social network. Digital reading software and its

features contribute in multiple ways to creating interaction among humans using ICT in handheld

computers. It is the classroom teachers’ responsibility to empower students to learn the content

through interaction and collaborations inside the classroom and outside the classroom walls

remotely. As noted in the National Academy Press (NAP, 2016), the executive report suggested

that in order for economic growth, welfare, military security, and global leadership, the United

States engineering education must be integrated by a stronger curriculum (K-16) that includes

advanced sciences and mathematics, and technology education (TE) for engineering workforce

with practical skills. The NAP is integrated by the Science Academy, the Engineering Academy,

and the Medicine Academy, whose job it is to inform and advice Congress regarding educational

reforms at the national level. The Sustainable Developmental Goals as per the United Nations

Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (United Nations, 2016) suggest that

the world population by 2030 is expected to grow 30%, thus bringing specific educational,

economic, and social challenges. As mentioned in the report, the population growth will demand

a knowledge economy (e.g., digital economy) supported by equitable access and excellence to

education (Goal 4), decent work environment and economic growth (goal 8), developing

21
industry, innovation, and infrastructure (Goal 9), and reduced inequality (Goal 10), among other

global needs. Closing the achievement gap in the underserved population in the metropolitan

areas requires classroom teachers to infuse STEAM-rich environments that integrate

interdisciplinary content, construct knowledge, and skills. It is imperative that classroom teachers

promote inclusion, equity, excellence, and life-long learning through a Universal Design

Learning (UDL) format and OER-opened Pedagogies (Wiley and Hilton, 2018) in teaching and

learning.

Re-imagining the role of education in the 21st Century digital economy requires

educators to change the way they perceive the digital pedagogies within their classroom context,

as it influences the local, national, and international economy. Classroom teachers and

educational leaders in charge of school improvement are the catalyst to construct knowledge and

relationships in academia that will impact workplace and communities by vulnerable members

(i.e., children, women, youth, and seniors). Practitioners in education must facilitate creativity

(e.g., capacity to think up original solutions to problem-solving) and innovation (e.g., long-term

driver of competitiveness and productivities) for digital citizens to compete and contribute for

the betterment of a healthier economy locally at the metro area and globally (United Nations,

2016). It is worth noting that effective leaders in an effort to re-imagine digital pedagogies will

need to develop a positive learning atmosphere of collaboration and inclusion supported by a

CR-SE framework. The research questions measured the pursued purpose of the study by

identifying among subjects core concepts, the interception of concepts and practices, and the

climate and culture for CS implementation in the future. About 63% of the interviewees had

unclear perceptions and a lack of coherence describing core concepts regarding technology

integration. Most of the participants’ tasks described were considered low technology integration

22
levels as per the SAMR model. and more than 90% of the participants acknowledged that the

vision for an integrated platform was significant to build a well-rounded education.

There are needs and deficiency in practice (NAP, 2016), the following central research

question, and sub-questions below guided this study.

Research Questions

Central Research Question: What is Middle School (7-8 grades) Teachers’ Perception of

Technology Integration in Teaching Latinx Students in a U.S. Metropolitan School District?

1) How would you describe the use of technology in your subject area with English Language

Learners (ELLs) population?

2) How did the COVID-19 pandemic impact your perception of technology integration in your

subject area and how did this perception change especially addressing ELLs population?

3) Have you ever encountered any issues implementing technology in your practices, especially

with the ELLs population?

4) Based on your remote learning experiences after COVID-19, what are the advantages and

disadvantages of traditional face-to-face education versus remote learning? And how your recent

experiences can contribute to reimagine and re-build school mission to educate every child

regardless of the ethnicity and social-economic status (SES)?

5) Given the fact that During COVID-19 pandemic you integrated technology through remote

learning, how would you define Computer Science (CS) with Latinx students?

6) What is your perception of equitable access?

7) What is your perception of technology-based curriculum planning?

8) What is your perception of social media (i.e., You tube, Facebook, twitter)?

9) What is your perception of technology-based differentiation learning in ELLs?

23
10) How would you envision a connection among equity, technology-based curriculum planning,

social media, and technology-based differentiation learning in ELLs?

Rationale for Methodology

A basic qualitative study design guided this study. A qualitative research study methodology

explains the design of the study by determining how the sample will be selected, how data will

be collected and analyzed, and how trustworthiness will be ensured (Merriam, 2009). Merriam

(2009) presented different elements of design when elaborating on the method of qualitative

research. These are (a) Introduce the research problem, purpose, followed by the research

questions, (b) Design of the study, (c) Sampling selection strategy, (d) Data collection and data

analysis, (e) Validity and reliability, (f) Research assumptions, and (g) Translation issues.

Translation issues require expertise for analysis and interpretation and it is beyond the scope of

the research. The focus of this study is to explore teacher’s perception of digital technology

integration in teaching and learning Latinx students in U.S. metropolitan school district.

This basic qualitative study used interview protocols to provide answers to the research

questions as the story emerged from participants’ constructed reality and context. Interviews

offer opportunities to the researcher to capture participants’ interpretation, experiences, and

perceptions of their own knowledge and constructed experiences (Patton, 2002).

Semi-structured interviews and an individual interview protocol was used in this study.

Definition of Terms

Effective Practice: Students and educators regardless the SES work alongside in blending

learning setting as co-learners and co-creators of authentic learning experiences through

personalized learning (i.e., student agency, student-centered activities) gear to acquire,

construct, and demonstrate knowledge of the future. Teachers-students, and

24
 peers-to-peers communicate and collaborate to problem solve using different digital

resources positively and creatively to reach individual full potential. Technology tool

serves as a bridge between equity and access to promote excellence in education (ISTE,

2017).

Quality Instruction: it is an instruction that is purposely planned that includes when, how

should the digital tool be introduced or integrated within the content to attain

technology’s instructional goal. Instructional activities must be authentic and rigorous in

content to support an individual students’ learning (i.e., interest, engagement) and result

in new or improved open educational resources that provide a lasting benefit of the

broader community of learners (Wiley and Hilton, 2018).

Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study

The digital revolution is here. Ninety percent (90%) of the current digital data has been

created in the last two years (Kennedy and Poland, 2018). The OET (2017) and the NETP (2017)

investigated that the digital revolution has impacted pedagogy practices anywhere and anytime in

the field of teaching and learning, communication (i.e., instantly), and decision-making at the

academic workplace locally, nationally, and internationally. Re-imagining pedagogy in the 21st

Century digital revolution, and how emerging pedagogical practices from day to day challenges

have impacted learner’s learning experiences are at the forefront as never before.

Kivunja (2014) argued that new literacies are rapidly impacting digital literacy pedagogy,

curriculum, and student’s performances. Therefore, it is imperative to re-imagine pedagogy (i.e.,

strategically design effective practices embedded in student-centered practices in authentic

context for active learning), to transform and accelerate learning, specially to underserved

populations who are vulnerable to inequity and access in order to advance in the emerging digital

25
(i.e., knowledge) economy. Practitioners have not predicted the long-term effects of the ICT and

its impacts in the classrooms and beyond classroom walls when more exemplary digital practices

are desperately needed (Coiro, 2015).

Appropriate use of the technological tools can be conducive to learning. The digital use

divide is the catalyst for the transformation of digital learning to happen. However, teachers are

not digitally equipped to understand how to use the technology that is continually evolving in the

21st Century digital economy, requiring a collective effort among stakeholders to build capacity

for educators (Tondeur et al., 2016). Formal learning environments have not yet adapted to the

types of digital media innovation that support optimal learning and child development (Katz and

Levine, 2015). In the digital revolution, practitioners and researchers perceive teachers as

learners. Educators, in local collective vision, but positioned globally need to build self-efficacy

of digital tools to augment teacher-based knowledge of resources creatively around digital

pedagogies (CoSN, 2017; Garza, 2019; NCTE, 2018) in a socio-culturally technology-based

academic workplace, integrated by intergenerational teams as recommended by Fogg (2018).

In addition to close the digital use divide, equitable pedagogies, knowledge and

perceptions have been determinant factors for students’ achievements. Equitable pedagogies,

knowledge, and perceptions have influenced students’ encouragement and achievement in

teaching and learning. If students are not motivated because the teachers’ perceptions of digital

technology are low, children in low SES districts will not be prepared for the jobs that are not

ready yet. It is expected that Latinos (25%) and Blacks (13%) will lose their jobs in the next few

years due to automatization as a result of the Artificial Intelligence (Hong et al., 2016).

Open Educational Resources and renewable assignments can facilitate learning. As

digital technology emerges and the body of literature is still growing, pedagogical and

26
unpredictable impacts of ICT in the classroom continue to grow (Coiro, 2015). There are great

challenges in doing research in topic of open pedagogy (Wiley & Hilton, 2018). There is a strong

commitment for more practitioners to integrate OER-enabled pedagogy practices and renewable

assignments as a promise to fulfill the moral obligation of education for all anywhere, and

anytime.

If Danielson Framework (2015) supports improving effective practices, and Gardiner’s

transactional leadership (2006) suggests students to become adapt to the provisional changes of

sharing information in a meaningful way, personally, organizationally, and globally, then, it is

significant that OER-enabled pedagogies and renewable assignments are effective practices to

lead student achievement. It is also evident that teachers and students can be co-learners and

creators of content knowledge through iterative, vibrant, and instant interactional networks

ubiquitously. The aim of education should be to challenge students’ current assumptions through

live human interaction in organizational settings through a culturally network-based of authentic

collaboration (Gardiner, 2006). In conclusion, real-life experiences are socially constructed with

human interaction using multiple forms of data (Merriam, 2009).

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

In order to expand and refine learning experiences in the context of the learner, this

research study (i.e., simple qualitative) explored teachers’ perceptions regarding technology

integration, pedagogy, and knowledge of the resources to discover whether teachers’ beliefs

differ in particular context and subject areas. Therefore, for the study to be significant and to

address the gap in emerging classroom technology, Chapter 2 analyzes the narrative state of

knowledge in rethinking the role of pedagogy in the technological world. Some themes covered

are the challenges of the knowledge economy in the 21st Century, the unmet skills to succeed in

27
jobs that do not exist locally and globally, building teacher capacity (i.e., self-efficacy, intrinsic

motivation, attitude, gender-based), and student-centered practices that work. Chapter 3 provides

a detailed description of the methods that will be used to address this study’s purpose and

research questions. Chapter 4 will provide the qualitative results of this proposed study. Chapter

5 will furnish a discussion, conclusion, recommendations, and implications based on the

qualitative results of this proposed study.

28
 Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

Whether is in the classroom or beyond the school walls (i.e., remote learning during

COVID-19 pandemic), the digital technologies have revolutionized the way teaching and

learning takes place, leaving practitioners with no choices than to rethink and reimagine digital

pedagogies through teachers’ practices rooted in the new emerging 21st Century digital economy

and ISTE standards (Swallow and Olofson, 2017). The following review of literature confirms

that educational practitioners are present with challenges that go beyond gaining simple and

practical skills to more complex ones. In most cases, professional development to enhance

practices and support students to adapt to new trends around emerging technologies, college and

career readiness, workplace-specific, life, and beyond school walls is required. The literature

review starts with studies supporting the need to reimagine education as emerging technologies

evolves and concludes with describing the unmet critical skills around CT, the need of structured

professional developments to build self-efficacy, the need to promote empowerment, and last to

better teachers’ attitude for technology integration ubiquitously.

Knowledge Economy and the New Pedagogical Paradigm

From the industrial age economies to the current 21st Century knowledge economy, a new

paradigm in pedagogy to educate students to be equipped to the job-ready workplace is urgent

and needs immediate attention (Kivunja, 2014). Kivunja (2014) claimed that transformation from

the industrial transformation to the knowledge economy requires re-thinking and re-imagining

pedagogy. What students are learning? How does learning happen? And how do we facilitate

learning? These are emerging questions and answers that concern many practitioners and

stakeholders of the 21st Century knowledge economy. Emerging new technologies and their uses

29
have caused more questions than answers about the 21st Century skills paradigm. Questioning the

responsibility of educational practitioners (i.e., classroom teachers), what do they do, and how

they best use informational communication technologies (ICT) effectively and efficiently to

improve students’ outcomes to promote life-long learning are a significant milestone to be reach

for the benefit of all. Re-imaging pedagogy and understanding the implication of pedagogy in the

ever-changing world is the utmost important priority for practitioners, researchers, and the

community at large for learning to take place in school and beyond school walls. With the

changing trends in technology, the school function and teachers’ roles and responsibilities more

than ever need to be to re-think, re-define, and re-imagine education to mitigate ever-changing

challenges of the 21st Century digital revolution.

Preparing Students for Unknown Jobs

More than Basic Skills Locally and Globally

Current and evolving digital economies (i.e., knowledge economy) locally and globally

demand educational practitioners to prepare students for the job for which that they are not yet

prepared (P21st-century, 2018). Therefore, collective work, personalization, and empowerment

at a local and global level require educational practitioners to accelerate and transform emerging

digital pedagogy in educational systems to strategically design and create high quality

challenging tasks that reinforce the concepts of Science Technology Engineering Arts and

Mathematics (STEAM) in real contexts aligned to the 21st Century (ISTE, 2017; P21st.org,

2018). As noted by the United National Sustainable Goals 2030 urban agenda (UNSG, 2016),

and the International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE, 2017), education practitioners

must know how to facilitate more than basic skills (i.e., Collaboration, Critical Thinking,

Communication) within a culturally-based digital environment. In addition, both organizations

30
recommend the redefinition of the learning spaces and challenging digital tasks beyond the scope

of nationalized citizens to different generational groups, including refugees, migrants, and

displaced students, in order to fulfill the promises of a more robust United States economy and

national security locally and globally. It is significant to position teachers’ responsibility from the

perspectives of local and international scholars. Students’ competencies (see Table 1) are shown

to improve achievement that leads to school improvement at a local level. The Danielson

Framework (2015) claims effective, responsible teachers must process fundamental digital skills

(i.e., knowledge of the resources, pedagogies, and content) for the 21st Century to lead school

improvement. Gardiner’s Transcendental Framework (2006), likewise, added that there is a need

for students’ empowerment and to become life-long learners as they adapt themselves (i.e.,

personally, organizationally, and globally) to the provisional changes with the 21st Century digital

economy.

Table 1

Teacher and Student’s Standards for the 21st Century Skills

Students’ 2017 ISTE standards Edtech Practitioners 2019 ISTE standards

Empowered learner-active learning Learner-collaborative learn from with others

Digital Citizen-rights, responsibility, ethic Citizen-problem solving global, curiosity

Innovative designer-iterative, 3D Designer-Problem solver, UDL

Knowledge constructor- create knowledge Facilitator-creative innovator, problem solver

Computational Thinker (CT)- discomposing Analyst-use DDDM, goals setting, and
parts and social-emotional measuring progress

Creative communicator-communicate clearly Leader-empower learner, build self-efficacy

Global collaborator-start locally Collaborator-problem solver

31
Preparing Students for a Job that does Not Exist

Research has shown that 65% of students will work in jobs that do not exist today,

adversely affecting American labor progress readiness due to the emerging trend in a

knowledge-based economy according to the world economic forum and the Institute for the

Future (IFTF). The article claims that the application of a technology-based pedagogy and

teaching strategic skills can empower student-centered technology environments to amplify and

transform learning experiences in an interconnected learner’s digital world. The article suggested

that human life is becoming hybrid (i.e., digital and physical) requiring students to become part

of the digital space and the globe in an ever-changing economy that requires more competencies

in the design process, computational thinking (CT), problem-solving, and solution-making

mindset. Re-imagining the role of technology, re-thinking pedagogy, the role of the government

in education, and the future of the educational system is paramount locally and globally.

Globalization and the Pedagogical Paradigm Shift

International Cooperation and the Four Pedagogical Paradigms

Solidarity, moral, and pedagogical paradigms over the centuries have helped build the

foundation to understand globalization from the local level perspective. Piaget’s (2011)

publication from 1931 supports children international cooperation through different perspectives.

The author argued that for students and teachers to understand international affairs in the United

States (US) school system needs to develop a belief of solidarity (i.e., moral and intellectual)

within the context of the school learning community. As noted by the author, the aim of the

educational system is to develop independent personalities capable of accumulating knowledge

together integrating mutual understanding intellectually, that means the exchange of ideas

through discussion, and morally, i.e., social development of ideas and rules in order to develop

32
self-government and collective work above mentioned. The article reports that nobody has ever

learned anything from other people's experience since it is human nature that each new

generation must learn over again what past generations had to discover for themselves. The

article concluded that effective lessons were those ones in which the experiences were based on

actual experiences, otherwise, were ineffectual. Just like Piaget’ (2011) recent publication

supports international cooperation, Kivunja (2014) discussed the impact of traditional

pedagogical paradigms influenced by the new pedagogical paradigm of the 21st-century digital

pedagogy.

From Aristotle to an Emerging Pedagogical Paradigm Shift

Kivunja (2014) emphasized how the principles of four pedagogical paradigms (i.e.,

Aristotle, Plato; Skinner, Pavlov; Piaget; Vygotsky) over the centuries intertwined and that the

emerging 21st Century skills paradigm challenged the status quo. Kivunja argued that Aristotle

and Plato’s pedagogic paradigms define a student as an empty vessel or sponge that requires the

use of factual information facilitated through instruction, while Skinner’s and Pavlov’s paradigm

discuss learning as a development through stimuli and basic concepts aligned to the lesson

objectives, giving learners effective feedback and reinforcement. Likewise, learning occurs

through active discovery and construction of knowledge collectively through accommodated

individual interaction, personal discovery, and experimentation with the environment, facilitated

through engagement and relevant and applied learning experiences (Kivunja, 2014; Piaget,

2011). Vygotsky’s paradigm defined learning as an active construction of knowledge embedded

in an authentic social cultural relationship in which problem-solving strategies are facilitated by

opportunities to collaborate, explain, and discuss shared meaning (Kivunja, 2014). Kivunja

significantly discussed that the new pedagogical paradigm shift will require more

33
application-oriented tasks, more high-level thinking strategies, and problem-solving using

technology other than just teaching basic skills (i.e., 3 R’s, Arithmetic, Writing, Reading).

Kivunja argued that improved and new skills as innovation (critical thinking and

problem-solving skills), career and life domain (i.e., collaboration and teamwork), and digital

literacy skills. Shifting is needed; re-imaginings and re-thinking technology, pedagogy, and

curriculums are crucial as new digital economies are constantly emerge.

Teachers’ Motivation and Proven Practices

Teachers’ Intrinsic Motivation and Capacity Building

Blackboard (ISTE, 2017) studies suggested that the whole educational system requires

intrinsic motivation of teachers for improving technical competencies of groups of educators

working together, purposely and relentlessly. The report suggested teachers must possess the

appropriate competencies to be more effective with instructional technology since their role and

responsibility must be to prepare students for tomorrow workplace. This emerging knowledge

economy demands that new learning experiences are facilitated by teachers’ increased capacity

and competency in using digital tools within modified learning spaces, which is necessary for

transforming education in the classroom and beyond school walls. The reports also

acknowledged that administrators (67%) are challenged when teachers lack motivation and

personal beliefs to change their traditional instructional practice to more effective use of tech in a

meaningful way. Both reports suggested questions with few or no answers yet. For example, are

teachers nationwide equipped to use technology effectively? Are they willing to change their

practices? Do teachers have the right attitudes to sustain the changes in practices?

Unfortunately, teachers’ competency, attitude and beliefs, and willingness to change are concerns

for administrators, parents, and policymakers. Internal and external stakeholders emphasized that

34
integrating digital content and resources effectively within the practice are a difficult and scary

journey; however, due to the positive students’ outcome, teachers’ ability and willingness to try

newer practices embedded in a digital culture (i.e., teachers teach and students learn) are

encouraged and expected by stakeholders. However, Blackboard and Project Tomorrow (2017)

found that when teachers’ attitudes and personal beliefs are positive in a meaningful way to

personalize and differentiate learning, unprecedented changes for integration occur and go

beyond students’ engagement. Blackboard reported that 43% of teachers and 65% of principals

believed that integrating technology was significant for students’ success and transformed

learning experiences. The article pointed out that teachers who experienced online blended

learning classes for their professional learning demonstrated advances in using technology with

their students, resulting in higher aspirations for leveraging technology to support a transformed

learning environment. Although administrators and parents acknowledged the positive use of

technology from an experienced teacher, parents also noted the lack of sufficient practical skills

for in-service teachers could lead to limited and unproductive working conditions. Blackboard

reported 56% of the parents recognized that teachers’ leadership in integrating digital technology

in the classroom matters in leveraging effective digital skills for their children, which are

successful skills for college, career readiness, and in the workplace.

As noted by the report, both parents and administrators recognized that the lack of

teachers’ preparedness in integrating digital technology impacted by the different transformative

initiatives (i.e., Virtual Reality [VR], Augmented Reality [AR], Maker Space [3D]) that emerge

as a result of current innovative technologies. Kivunja (2014) claimed that 21st Century skills

paradigms align to the purpose of education, and practitioners must present materials to students

that integrate concepts of the new emerging economies such as sharing economy (i.e., handheld

35
devices), ubiquitous opportunities, and Internet of Things. Kivunja claimed that it is very

significant to equip the new generation of learners, including generational groups (i.e.,

traditionalists, X, Y, and Z) with more than basic skills to succeed now and decades to come for

satisfaction in the workplace and life. Policymakers and parents (66%), just like administrators,

discussed the need for students to be effective users of technology in school and beyond to

narrow the achievement gap between school and workplace (Blackboard, 2017). It is worth

noticing that emerging leadership of coaches needs to support classroom teachers how to find

and use high-quality digital resources (i.e., OER), curated set of resources organized by grade

level and content, management strategies, and rubrics for evaluation of quality digital literacies

to mention a few.

The integration of digital technology other than being a bridge between equity and

excellence can be an equalizer for transformative learning. The ISTE EdTech practices (2019)

reported that for practitioners to reach significant levels of proficiency in technology integration

and computational thinking competencies (CT), educators need to start learning right where they

are and feel comfortable to get out of their comfort zone, to progress at their own pace, and to

practice with others to move toward mastery. It is worth noting that during COVID-19 teachers

expanded their knowledge in distance learning, forcing them out of their comfort zone. In

addition, The ISTE (2019) also described EdTech practitioners as learners (i.e., collaboratively

learn from and with others), teachers as leader (i.e., embrace self-efficacy, empowerment, and

equity), teachers as collaborator (i.e., problem solve global issues), teachers as facilitator (i.e.,

empower, creative innovative), teachers as citizens (i.e., contribute, inspire curiosity, ethical),

teachers as designer (i.e., problem-based learning, UDL equitable access plans), and teachers as

analysts (i.e., use data-driven decision making and developing instructional goals).

36
Student-Centered, SAMR, and TPACK Practices

ISTE (2017) and National Educational Technology Plan (NETP, 2017) reported on

digital learners' preparedness for the emerging instructional technological tools. Edtech

practitioners must now transform, accelerate, and adapt a proactive mindset to build

competencies to instruct and empower learners throughout an active role in using technology to

enhance their learning and problem-solving skills. ISTE and NETP arguably supported learners

through technology-based environment to achieve and demonstrate digital citizenship, capacity

to construct knowledge (i.e., critically curate variety resources using digital tools), capacity to

become an innovative designer (i.e., use variety technology within design process to identify

imaginative solutions), computational thinker, and global collaborator (i.e., use digital tools to

broaden and enrich their learning in collaboration with others globally and locally).

Puentedure (2016) and Swallow and Olofson ( 2017) correctly argued that technology

integration, even though is an emerging topic, can be better studied from two theoretical

frameworks: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) and

Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Puentedure (2016) investigated and

proposed SAMR, and Swallow and Olofson (2017) proposed TPACK as possible and viable

solutions for a high-level degree of technology integration in the classroom. Both frameworks

provide a blueprint for understanding how practitioners can use and integrate technology in the

classroom effectively to enhance students’ achievement from a knowledge-based perspective.

TPACK, as noted by Swallow and Olofson (2017), is an international learning framework that

enhances the practice and profession reinforced by integrating technology, pedagogy, and

content to achieve meaningful and effective (i.e., deeper levels of understanding) outcomes in a

cultural learning-based technology environment. In addition, Swallow and Olofson argued that

37
TPACK could support new forms of professional development to better the synergy between

technology and digital pedagogy knowledge, technology and content knowledge, and pedagogy

and content knowledge respectively. The implication for practice is that TPACK is in alignment

to the traditional Danielson Framework domain 01 (2013) now aligned to component 02 (The

Group for Remote Teaching, 2020), that is planning and preparation provides an opportunity to

fully collaborate in strategic lesson planning designs of high-quality standard. Many school

districts are using SAMR and TPACK to measure and evaluate teacher’s readiness for classroom

practices (Backboard, 2017). For example, the SAMR framework informs teachers to use

technology to support classroom integration by redefining the learning space, replace traditional

teaching methods by assisting the instructor in determining the level of technology integration

(i.e., alternative learning environment), enhancing and transforming learning experiences in the

classroom and beyond school walls (i.e., remote learning) anytime and anywhere. However, most

districts reported that more than 50% are still in substitution and augmentation (i.e., lower levels

of integration) while less than one-third are within modification or redefinition that requires

significant instructional changes (Blackboard, 2017).

Technological Society and Social Media, Anywhere, Anytime

Kivunja (2014) claimed that digital technology, now “know where” rather than “know

how” and “know what” must be embedded in teaching, learning, and assessment through

inclusive settings integrated into generational groups to compete in the knowledge economy.

Kivunja also stated that digital technology develops better in a collaborative approach where

learning experience is facilitated, modified, amplified, and constructed through collaborative

activities using social media technologies. Social media technologies facilitate active learning of

pedagogical content and curriculum. Kivunja reported that a group of Ph.D. students increased

38
participation from 250% to 480% by becoming more dynamic and proactive learners due to the

personal desire to participate rather than to demand response from the task. As noted by the

author, activities through social networks benefit and make sense to the learners and pedagogues

in their learning and professional practices. Interest, attitude, motivation, personal drive,

conversation falls into Bloom Taxonomy (1956) higher order critical thinking skills, high levels

of engagement, ability to explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate (Kivunja, 2014; Blackboard,

2017). The Blackboard report (2017) discovered that over 50% of teachers using blended

classrooms reported engagement, success, achievement, and skill development, while more and

more teachers are using technology (i.e., webinar, TEDTalk) to support their professional

development and becoming self-directed learners to enrich their experiences and practices

simultaneously.

Remote Learning, Mission, Call to Action, and Funding

There is a limited body of knowledge in published research about virtual K-12 learning in

pedagogy (I.e., delivery, strategic designs). However, in wake of COVID-19 pandemic

educational practitioners realized more than ever the importance of integrating technology in

daily educational curriculum in all subject areas to advance the purpose of education. With no

choice, students, family, and teachers locally, nationally, and globally had to learn from their

daily life experiences, day by day forced experiences under stress and uncertainty. Permanent

remote learning today is a result of school closures with the urgency to keep students learning as

a result of a social distancing mandate due to the pandemic.

Now and Then of Remote Learning

Barone et al. (2001) agreed that distributed learning can occur either on or off school,

providing students with greater flexibility for interaction and collaboration between faculty and

39
students thus eliminating time as a barrier to learning. In the wake of COVID-19, forced remote

learning is used to keep students learning while adhering to the social distancing mandate among

school community members. Herbert (2018) argued that instead of finding online leaning as

equivalent to face-to-face instructions, educators need to approach e-learning slowly as a

supplemental instruction as practitioners discover the potential time issues. Herbert

recommended that e-learning be a modular course versus weekly topics to avoid students

becoming overwhelmed, to create small groups instead of big ones, to focus on alternative

assessments to make thinking visibly aligned to rubrics for fidelity and explain to the learner

how and why the task is important (i.e., task value). Sayapragassarazan ( 2020) argued that more

personalized choice-based synchronous learning that authentic involves online social networking

is preferred for student’s engagement. However, for the last two decades remote learning has

been used for leveraging scheduling conflicts and hard to staff qualified personnel. Since 2000

we have had an enormous enrollment of students in virtual learning due to the needs of

appropriate curricula, and schedule conflict, and hard to staff institutions with qualified teachers

(Barone et al,, 2001). In 2010, due to a high increase of students’ population, officials in many

school districts in the U.S. sought to cope with financial burdens by utilizing distance learning.

Call to Collaborative Action in Troubled Waters

During economic hardships, while navigating new realities and the digital divide along

with so many other injustices, the International Society of Technology Education (ISTE),

Computer Science Technology Association (CSTA), and Science Education Technology (

SETDA), and EDsurge (2007) call leadership to action to continue the innovation of their

learning distribution by re-imagining students’ learning experiences within and far beyond the

classroom through collaboration and sharing resources in real-time with each other. Leadership

40
must have clear expectations and provide support while using apps in mobile devices. Snelling

and Fingal, (2020) agreed that shifting to online learning will require educators and leaders to

empower learners with equitable access, support, and clear expectation among students and

parents while using the applications. Foster (2006) implied that in the aftermath of troubled

waters or disaster, educators must not only have high expectations by providing opportunities in

and out of the classroom, but also pay close attention to students’ and family’s circumstances

while building robust communities through collaboration and partnerships.

Funding

A call to action requires funding. In the wake of COVID-19 pandemic, ISTE (April 20,

2020) report and the CARES Act suggested that school districts across the nation have the fiscal

ability (I.e., ESSA, IDEA, Title IV) to utilize funding for vulnerable community to invest in

infrastructures, devices, resources for the summer months, aid for PD for blended learning, plus

provided educational stabilization funds for effective pedagogical use. Research shows that when

a community is hit by a crisis, the community may be left behind up to 10 years.

Problems that Need Understanding

Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, and Attitude Matter

Sensoy and Yildirim (2018) claimed that self-efficacy beliefs of science teachers at the

college level increased significantly when technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPACK) and instructional digital materials were purposely designed. The article suggested that

to continually increase self-efficacy beliefs narrowed down the digital use divide among

teachers. Sensoy and Yildirim (2018) ratified that building capacity other than just simple basic

computer skills are paramount to lead successful technological integration and applications in the

context of the classroom environment involving authentic experiences through TPACK-based

41
instructional framework. Sensoy and Yildirim, however, noticed that integrating technology

through TPACK is a complex problem due to multiple factors that may be still emerging as

permanent and ubiquitous technologies evolve. Sensoy and Yildirim’s findings were significant

to improve not only teachers’ efficacy but also perceptions and attitude levels of strategic

purposely planned high-quality professional development aimed to improve instruction.

In the milestone study, Thannimalai and Raman (2018) investigated the impact of

professional development on teachers’ technology integration in the secondary level classrooms.

Thannimalai and Raman’ findings considered the influence of five constructs, described as

principal leadership, digital culture, development of high-quality capacity building, and

excellence in professional practice. The authors claimed that professional development is not

only significant in technology integration, but also supports improved relationships between

principals and teachers. They argued that school leaders and teachers must be equipped with

Information and Communication Skills (ICT) and knowledge to overcome challenges and meet

the demand of the emerging digital knowledge economy, which are factors perceived to promote

learning and innovation that empowers teachers to enhance student learning through

technologies and digital resources (ISTE, 2017). The U.S. Department of Education report

suggested that the lack of PD hours for ELL staff compared to their non-ELL counterparts, in

addition to lack of digital accessibility, digital learning resources, and lack of support have left

ELL students behind by limiting assignments involving digital learning (Michell, 2020).

Professional development can enhance and support a better attitude toward integration.

Chinyamurindi and Dlaza (2018) and Anya et al. (2019) agreed that the predictive behavior of a

resistant (i.e., competence, confidence, and generational challenges) individual to use digital

tools for instructional purpose will depend on (a), how effective one can assists career

42
development scholarship supported by professional development and (b), individual attitude (i.e.,

personal investment of time and effort to learn ICT literacies) to implement technology tools in

the classroom context. Chinyamurindi and Dlaza found that emerging societal changes resulting

from digital technologies are transforming traditional learning’s environments toward a more

knowledge-based scenario visible through reading, writing, speaking, and listening formats as

never before. Technology Accepted Model (TAM) and Theory Reaction Action (TRA)

influenced the authors findings in predicting the individual behavior to perform a task. Ikhwan

(2019) argued that good attitude conception among teachers to design student-centered activities

can motivate ELLs which is of great significance in teaching and learning technology. A positive

attitude leads to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which is a significant factor for sustainable

and successful social presence in e-learning.

Gender-Based-Attitude Professional Development

Yi (2015) acknowledged the effectiveness of technology integration can be influenced by

the gender-based perspective before and after teachers’ involvement in professional

development. Yi argued that male teachers have shown more enthusiasm and better attitudes

regarding technology integration in the classroom than their female counterparts, but less

significant after professional development. However, the same article reports more significant

integration on behalf of the female teachers after the teachers participated in professional

development activities geared at technology integration. The article reports that there are

different needs by individual teachers according to the gender when planning for PD. The article

suggests that for the last two decades technology has been changing the learning and teaching

paradigm and it is imperative that professional development can and will change pedagogues’

perception, attitude, and motivation effective integration of technology in teaching and learning

43
for leveraging equity and excellence for both teachers and students alike. Microsoft Innovative

Educator (MIE) platform is an excellent medium for educational transformation to take place in

and out of school grounds since it has abundant accessibility apps, webinars, and resources for

leveraging equitable access for all students during school closures, work, and life (Butler et al.,

2013).

Student Issues that Need Understanding

Effective learning environments and effective teaching are for the most part a result of a

strategic planning that put the learner at the center with the socio-emotional and academic needs

embedded in a UDL design model. First and foremost, the target population for this study are

ELLs who, under different legislation (I.e., NCLB, ESSA, Title I,II, and IV-A, LAP, Title IV,

CARES Act, 2020), have been supported, however there is still much more to be done.

Language Allocation Policy is a top priority. There is an urgency to utilize the core

competencies of the language Allocation Policy (LAP) with ELLs and Students with Disabilities

(SWD). The New York City department of education press release (April, 11, 2020 reference? )

that ratified that LAP addendum for remote learning during COVID-19 needs to be incorporate

in all Universal Design Planning to address equity, access, and excellence in this vulnerable

sub-group.

Self-efficacy and confidence in the academics promote growth in ELLs. Soland (2019)

stated that English Language Learners (ELLs) start middle school (90% were Latinx) with lower

growth in math and reading compared to non-Ells peers due to low self-efficacy and lack of

academic self-confidence. The author argued that ELLs have a high achievement gap (i.e.,

associated to social-emotional learning and well-being) and high dropout rates compared to

English-native speakers since they need to learn a new language while building the core skills in

44
academic subjects. ISTE (March 20, 2020) defined SEL as the process of acquiring core

competencies to recognize and manage emotions, set and achieve positive responsible decisions,

and handle interpersonal situations constructively. Digitalization and accessibility can definitely

support self-confidence though collaborative networks (i.e., Teams, Zoom) in different subject

areas (i.e., Sciences, College Careers, Arts).

Lee et al. (2020) agreed that practitioners need to identify significant factors impacting

ELL students to achieve self-learning regulation (SLR) and academic achievement in an urban

environment. Lee et al., identified self-efficacy, motivation, and engagement in active learning in

virtual learning scenarios of teaching in heterogeneous cross-cultural communication with the

aid of Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) and emerging collaborative technologies in K-12

resources.

Effective teachers are encouraged to exercise accommodation when planning and

delivering the lesson. Sayapraga (2020) and Chow (March 20, 2020) agreed that although school

is closed, learning must continue opened with strategic student-centered planning in authentic

collaborative networks (I.e., Google Meet, Zoom, Teams). The author argued that practitioners

must keep into account when planning: accommodation and flexibility, demonstrate kindness and

high self-esteem, learn new experiences as days passed taking advantages of MOOCs offered by

partnerships, and always aligning the goals of the lesson with the school mission (ISTE, March

20,2020).

Unmet CT Skills, Empowerment, and Teacher’s Perception

Cognitive and Social Emotional Skills for PD

Computational Thinking (CT) skills in digital technology are not negotiable. ISTE (2017)

reports that regardless whether or not an individual accepts an engineering career, students must

45
still be fully equipped and capable in CT to function in today’s digital age. As noted by the ISTE

(2017) report, skills such as breaking down problem (i.e., discomposing), recognizing pattern,

making connection, constructing automate solution through ordered steps, representing data

through models and simulations, organizing data logically, and managing general

problem-solving processes to transfer to other problems are some of the immediate strategic

skills needed to compete locally and globally. Just as with cognitive competencies, an individual

learner requires to have some social-emotional skills such as persistence, self-control, tolerance

for ambiguity, confidence in dealing with complexity, open-ended communication, and

collaboration which are complementary to their success. Professional development that involves

cognitive and social-emotional skills at the district level is suggested. Professional development

for teacher-designed activities related to service sorting content, recognizing patterns, organizing

content focused groupings (i.e., digital curation), and the design process that involve

social-emotional opportunity to socially construct knowledge through active collaboration and

problem-solving using the technology to connect globally, but acting locally (i.e., climate

changes are real, but requires global solutions). COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that

Maslow’s Hierarchy comes first before the tenets of knowledge

Empowerment

Disparities in resources and academic opportunities influence empowerment. Research

has shown that low socio-economic communities have been impacted by limited school

resources, lack of teacher quality professional development, lack of teacher’s and student’s

empowerment, type of administrative leadership, and level of community engagement that have

resulted in an uneven patchwork (Evans, 2017). In the wake of COVID-19, the NYC Department

of Education loaned more than 300,000 devices and broadband connectivity through partnership

46
to leverage Playing field as it is considered an underserved community (ISTE, 2020).

Technology use divide in school is an equity solution for leveraging the education playing field

for all students since under-resourced communities still encounter some barriers and disparities

(Evans, 2017; NETP, 2017). Evans argued that stakeholders (i.e., parents, and policy makers)

fully understand the promise of using effective technology in the development of 21st Century

economy skills (i.e., collaboration, critical thinking) to compete and contribute in a global

informational-intensive economy at the local level and after graduation. This promise is often

forgotten and skills remain unmet in many students, affecting their attitude and the learning

atmosphere with unprecedented negative long-standing implications.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, practitioners wonder about student's motivation and

engagement. Motivation and satisfaction can lead to sustainable learning. Lee et al. (2020)

argued that self-efficacy (i.e., people's belief about capability to influence performance that

affects their lives) and task value (i.e., how interesting and important is the task) are statistically

significant predictors of middle school and college students' satisfaction on e-learning.

Zimmerman (1989) defined SRL from the perspective of three processes, personal (i.e.,

self-efficacy, task value); behavior (i.e., cognitive and metacognitive); and, environmental (i.e.,

peer to peer and teacher feedback, social presence).

Educators’ Perception, Self-Efficacy, and Readiness

Harrell and Bynum (2018) claimed that it is the school responsibility to integrate

technology into the teaching and learning paradigm, and to prepare students for 21st Century

skills for college and career readiness. However, ineffective infra-structure (i.e., low bandwidths

internet, lack of powerful technological tools), poor teacher perceptions and self-efficacy (i.e.,

internal factors), and lack of sufficient and effective professional development (i.e., external

47
factors) prevent effective use and implementation to foster learners’ experiences in a progressive

knowledge-based economy. Piaget (1931) argued that it is significant for educational leaders in

charge of improving students’ outcomes to facilitate authentic opportunities in the classroom to

create learning experiences as a result of a moral, intellectual, and solidarity stance. Low

self-efficacy and teacher perceptions have had a significant correlation with teacher use of

technology in integrating it in the classroom context. As noted by Harrell and Bynum (2018),

teachers who feel confident and equipped using technology will be likely to use and implement

purposely designed activities to improve the quality of instruction. Likewise, teachers’ readiness

(i.e., evidenced by additional training and planning, classroom management practices) who can

understand and use information from a variety of digital sources will be the ones who will

integrate technology to engage and stimulate learning. However, it is worth noting that when

teachers are not confident in the use of these tools, they tend to have a lower perception of its

value thus creating an internal barrier.

ISTE (2019), NETP (2017), Future Ready Schools (FRS, 2018) and the Consortium of

School Network (COSN, 2015) argued that limited skills and opportunities for for practices for

in in-service teacher programs and by incoming students to college and the workplace have not

met the standards (i.e., effective communicator, responsible and engaged citizen, innovative

thinker and creator, globally competent, motivated lifelong learner) that are significant to

compete personally, organizationally, and globally (Gardiner, 2006) in a transcendent economy.

As long as 5 years ago, researchers and practitioners were talking about CT skills, which now

turn out to be the 21st Century skills (Kivunja, 2014; ISTE, 2019). There have been few changes,

although policymakers, parents, teachers, and administrators have recognized improved teaching

and learning integrated technologies (Kivunja, 2014; ISTE,2017; NETP,2017). Limited practices

48
and research in scopes of PreK-12 in the United States exist that show practical evidence,

advances, and full professional practices of digital technology in urban areas especially in Latinx

students, since most of the literature review evidenced that studies were conducted at college

level and international universities. Kivunja (2014) argued that students graduating from schools

and universities in the USA are lacking core subjects and basic skills (i.e., reading, writing,

numeracy), learning and innovation skills (i.e., critical thinking, problem-solving,

communication, creativity and innovation), career and life skills (i.e., collaboration and

teamwork, leadership, initiate and self-direction, adaptability-flexibility, social and cross-cultural

interaction, career self-reliance, productivity and accountability), and digital literacy skills (i.e.,

ICT literacy, computing literacy, information literacy). Teachers identified five essential elements

for its full understanding and integration, more collaborative planning time, more access to

technology in the classroom, on-going one to one technology support in context, continued

high-quality of professional development in a collaborative culture, and consistent high quality

Internet connectivity (Blackboard, 2017).

Concluding Summary

In order to expand and refine learning experiences in the context of the learner, this

qualitative research study will explore teachers’ perceptions regarding technology integration in

teaching middle school Latinx students in a U.S. Metropolitan school district regarding pedagogy

experiences and knowledge of the resources before and after COVID-19 to discover whether

teachers’ beliefs influence delivery in a particular context and English Language Arts (ELA). To

address the gap and challenges of emerging digital pedagogies, all educational practitioners more

than ever need to adapt themselves to acquire the unmet skills (i.e., to take a responsive attitude

49
to build self-efficacy of digital literacy) that significantly impact digital learner’ learning

experiences by participating in purposely designed capacity building.

If teachers’ capacity building influences positively, the integration of technology in the

classroom and beyond as Harrell and Bynum (2018) asserted, then it is the responsibility of an

effective teachers to develop the necessary knowledge and skills to integrate instructional

technology (i.e., technology tools, digital technology) into their teaching supported by a strong

infrastructure rooted in a technological and culture-based environment. Researchers who study

technology integration in the classroom and beyond argue that significant professional

development can enhance self-efficacy, attitudes, empowerment, and technological-based

learning experiences (Blackboard and Tomorrow Project, 2017; Evans,2017; Harrell & Bynum,

2018; Sensoy & Yildirim, 2018; Thannimalai and Raman, 2018) so they can help support

students’ unmet skills (Kivunja, 2014) that are necessary for students to succeed in schools,

college, work, and life. Therefore, it is the goal of my dissertation to explore teachers’

perceptions, views, and insights of the integration of digital technology with Latinx ELLs in the

classroom and beyond (COVID-19) and how this leads to school improvement in low SES

districts, an often forgotten component of the research studies presented in this literature review.

50
 Chapter 3: Research Methodology

Statement of the Problem

The primary focus of this study is to understand how digital learning concepts and

practices of tech-based curriculum intertwine in the school context and beyond to support equity

and access for middle school (7-8 grades) ELL Latinx students.

District Characteristics

The setting for this study was in a school district located in an urban area in a

northeastern state of the United States. The district serves 22, 250 students in the PK, KG-12.

The district comprises 25 elementary schools, 10 middle schools, 10 high schools, and one

alternative school. Teacher retention rate is 90% and 74.8% have their master degree with more

than 3 or more years of experience.

School Characteristics

Setting

The target school is located at one mile of multiple public housing developments. Each

school serves approximately 564 students from different ethnicities (i.e., 92.7% Latinx, 2.3%

White, 2% Blacks, and 2.1 % Asians) who are economically disadvantaged with 89% receiving

free or reduced lunch. The school is a non-zoned (i.e., students from outside school’s zone can

apply to this school) school with 14% English Language Learner and 18%, students with

disabilities. Only 4% of the students went to Urban Assembly Gateway, elective school for

Technology. There has been an extensive dialogue among the administration team of both

schools to have transferred students not only prepared for college and career, but for the need of

the academic curriculum of the incoming school.

51
 The targeted school for the study (X) demonstrated societal and socio-economic

challenges. However, there is great parental involvement, vibrant partnerships with local

colleges, philanthropic organizations, and a professional learning community (PLC) culture.

Families are heavily involved and very supportive and may have children in different grade

levels at schools. The students transition from Pre-K to Primary School to Intermediate. Parents

participate in multiple curricular activities built into the school hours. School quality snapshot

(SQS, 2017-18) reported that 94% of the parents responded positively about strong family

community ties. A non-profit organization partnership provides Computer Science instruction

(i.e., Robotic, Coding) while Yeshiva University enriches STEAM programs every Friday to four

grade classes. For the last four years, 90% of the teachers at school (X) have been designing

instructional programs together with opportunities to work productively with colleagues in

professional development (SQS, 2017-18). For the last four years, a digital platform (i.e., MyON,

i-Ready, has been used to supplement the school curriculum in Math and English Language Arts.

Computer Science (i.e., coding with Scratch) and Pearson (Envision Mathematics) have recently

been added to the digital platform. The current instructional goal is to develop a CR-SE practice

through growth mindset theory (Dweck, 2013), and i-Ready initiatives to build capacity for

teachers to inform their practices through data driven decision making (DDDM) is a reality in the

school culture.

Research Questions

Central Research Question: What is Middle School (7-8 grades) Teachers’ Perception of

Technology Integration in Teaching Latinx Students in a U.S. Metropolitan School District?

1) How would you describe the use of technology in your subject area with English Language

Learners (ELLs) population?

52
2) How did the COVID-19 pandemic impact your perception of technology integration in your

subject area and how did this perception change especially addressing ELLs population?

3) Have you ever encountered any issues implementing technology in your practices, especially

with the ELLs population?

4) Based on your remote learning experiences after COVID-19, what are the advantages and

disadvantages of traditional face-to-face education versus remote learning? And how your recent

experiences can contribute to reimagine and re-build school mission to educate every child

regardless of the ethnicity and social-economic status (SES)?

5) Given the fact that During COVID-19 pandemic you integrated technology through remote

learning, how would you define Computer Science (CS) with Latinx students?

6) What is your perception of equitable access?

7) What is your perception of technology-based curriculum planning?

8) What is your perception of social media (i.e., You tube, Facebook, twitter)?

9) What is your perception of technology-based differentiation learning in ELLs?

10) How would you envision a connection among equity, technology-based curriculum planning,

social media, and technology-based differentiation learning in ELLs?

Research Methodology

Research Design

A basic qualitative study design guided the proposed study. Creswell (2015) argued that

Ethnography studies describe a cultural group’s shared patterns of behavior and beliefs that

develop over time. In Narrative research design, the researcher aims to tell the story of one or

two individuals. A qualitative research study explains the design of the study by determining

how the sample will be selected, how data will be collected and analyzed, and how

53
trustworthiness will be ensured (Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) presented different elements of

design when describing the methodology of qualitative research. They are: (a) Introduce the

research problem, purpose, followed by the research questions, (b) Design of the study, (c)

Sampling selection strategy, (d) Data collection and data analysis, (e) Validity and reliability, (f)

Research assumptions, and (g) Translation issues. This study topic did not utilize translation

issues because it collected data from document analysis generated by semi-structured interviews

conducted in English and transcribed by Rev.com, digital platform. The focus of this Research

was to explore teacher’s perception of digital technology integration in teaching and learning

environment as an equalizer for educational attainment and lifelong learning in Latinx students

attending an U.S. Urban school district.

Sampling Strategy

Through purposive sampling, participants were recruited from these schools. Both

tenured, seasoned teachers (i.e., ELA) of different races and ethnicity (i.e., digital immigrant, not

born in the digital age) and those new to the profession (i.e., digital native, born in the digital

age) were contacted through emails, bulletin board announcements, and through personal

contact. Teachers who eagerly wanted to use the technology in their classrooms were preferred.

Their level of interest was determined with a brief multiple choice questionnaire about the trends

in digital technology and pedagogy to inform classroom practices. Sampling size was 11 subjects

with a minimum of one-year classroom experiences for digital native. A total 11 participants

were selected and provided understanding and direction for future research, which followed

suggestions by other researchers about small sampling sizes versus big sampling size (Creswell,

2007; Denzin and Lincoln, 2005; Stake, 2005; Yin, 1989 as cited in Pryor, 2013).

54
 Merriam (2009) suggested that researchers want to discover, understand, gain insight, and

select a sample that provides insight into the subject of investigation. Purposive sampling of

qualified candidates is likely to provide the most credible information if these subjects are

willing to openly and honestly share their stories (Creswell, 2015; Merriam, 2009).

Conversational approaches to interacting with future participants are expected to create a better

rapport among researchers and participants.

Instruments and Data Collection Procedure

Semi-structured Interview

Data was collected via Zoom conference through individual semi-structured interview

about CS core concept knowledge, practices, and attitude for future implementation among ELLs

Appropriate Individual Interview Protocol, Education Invitation Letter, and Recruitment Letter

were distributed via internet with the assistance of the Gatekeeper (See Appendix A, C, and D).

The data was collected via Zoom interview from 8/17/20 to 12//2020.

Zoom, audio-recorded phone calls and time for the interviews varied depending on the

willingness and the depth of the probe interview questions. Before starting the interview, the

researcher went over the educator invitation letter one more time to review and answer any

question or concern about the study. Some of them asked me question about my professional

life, since their supervisors were not available to answer them. Most of them were really excited

for the topics, but it was also notorious for their anxiety and frustration for their current

experiences. The researcher was the instrument for analysis across all phases of a qualitative

research project (Starks and Trinidad, 2007). This subjective endeavor entailed the inevitable

transmission of assumptions, values, interests, emotions, and theories within and across the

research project.

55
 The data collected from the semi-structured interview provided guidance to inform the

researcher about future data-driven decision-making practices (DDDM). Data collected, cleaned,

and analyzed informed current and future practitioners (i.e. teachers, administrators, service

providers, policymakers, and interested groups) at the district level to leverage equity access

plans to infuse emerging technologies and digital resources utilized to meet learners’ needs and

practitioners’ goals around technology integration. There should be opportunities for students to

learn from teachers who understand how to use technology with appropriate tools and skills to

enhance learning for all students (CoSN, 2016; FRS, 2018). School practices that lead to

students’ profound level of achievement and excellence in equity are those where teachers have

equitable access to the tools and skills to support students (CoSN, 2016; NETP, 2017; ISTE,

2018).

From the sampling frame (i.e., school population), the multi-state sampling was selected.

Implementing the semi-structured interviews, participants’ multiple perspectives (i.e., realities,

experiences) captured how the context and their background influence their realities and

experiences. Data collection was conducted beyond school walls with some accommodations

(i.e., phone calls, Zoom, community restaurants) for equitable access, while all communications

were recorded and assigned a code for confidentiality. When participants finished the interview,

they completed the demographic questions, which was an optimal place to shape participants’

background, values, and beliefs.

Data Analysis Procedures

The comparative narrative analysis (level 1, 2, and 3), coding, categories, and coding

themes, a timeline of activities, as well as validity (i.e., triangulation, member checks,

56
bracketing), were utilized to make a more comprehensive investigation of how educator perceive

technology integration with ELLs.

Because the purpose of the study is to understand how teachers describe digital

technology integration to drive student achievement in the classroom and beyond, the basic

qualitative study analysis was used. In the qualitative study, participant’s experiences drive the

analysis that provides rich descriptive accounts targeted to understand a phenomenon, a process,

or a point of view from the perspective of those involved. The resulting analysis focused on an

abstract conceptual narrative report that explained the phenomena in a logical manner answering

the central and sub-research questions. Informed by Creswell (2015), the following systematic

approach analysis was conducted to develop descriptions and themes from the data to answer the

major research questions.

Similar to reviewed studies, in this study transcription and critique were accomplished

through a primary coding process of the data collected from the semi-structured interview, which

captured the essence of most sentences in the transcription. Creswell (2015) argued that

qualitative research is a purely inductive grounded process that leads to interpretation of the data.

Creswell (2015) argued that there is no single approach to analyzing qualitative data since basic

qualitative design is selective and interpretative that brings researcher’s perspective to the

interpretation. The analysis requires a horizontal review for each transcript to find ideas or

concepts of interest to the participants. After finding patterns on the ideas, the data was

categorized into themes described through narratives, definitions, and direct quotes from the

interview and transcript observations. Bracketing is a method used by some researchers to

mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of unacknowledged preconceptions related to the

57
research and thereby to increase the rigor of the project (Tufford and Newman, 2010). A step by

step protocol was followed and described below:

First, the researcher started with a general idea (i.e., digital technology integration from

the standpoint of equity and access) aiming to discover experiences and perceptions that

answered the structured research questions. Next, the researcher prepared and organized the data

for analysis by reading the first transcripts several times, immersed in detail, asking “what is this

person talking about?;” then writing in the margin two or three words, memo-ing, and

conducting the analysis for deeper understanding before breaking data in tables or figures.

Second, the researcher explored and coded data for the second and third transcripts for

emerging codes and concepts aligned to the structured-research questions. This was an

interactive process, simultaneously going from the data analysis and collection in the early stage

to begin coding and identifying text segments and assigned code labels as it emerged. If an

emerging concept was developed, the researcher took time to reflect how important these

concepts were and what they meant in relation to the research questions. The actual goal was

identifying, naming, categorizing, and describing phenomena through continually evaluating and

co-constructed experiences with the transcripts (Creswell, 2015).

Third, the researcher described findings and formed themes. If more than 30-50 codes

evolved from the transcripts, the researcher reduced them to five to seven major themes

considering redundancies, and unexpected themes (Creswell, 2015). The researcher looked out

for themes that emerged in the analysis that reflected contrary evidence that did not support the

theme. Saturation (i.e., not more emerging new codes), layering themes (interconnect themes),

interrelating themes (i.e., chair of the department) were considered. Axial coding is the process

of relating codes to each other (Creswell, 2015). In the analysis process it was very important to

58
study relationships with other categories, frequency of occurrence to get abstract concepts (e.g.,

core categories). Next, the researcher wrote descriptive sentences and memos (e.g., dialogues,

narratives) that answered the research questions in the form of narrative report.

Fourth, the researcher represented and reported the findings. Creswell (2015) suggested

researchers use a variety of visuals. The researcher used tables, narrative discussion that

summarize detailed findings from data analysis, description and themes, and interconnecting

themes to answer the central and sub-research questions.

Fifth, the researcher interpreted the meaning of the findings described in chapter 4 in

chapter 5. Interpretation gravitated around the interpretation of the data findings, lesson learned,

personal view and previous studies to enlarge some meaning considering the problem, methods,

discussion, and results, limitations, and recommendation for future research. The researcher

wrote the point of view in the systematic approach in the third person objectively in a tone

supported by the literature review in chapter II, and the emerging literature review from the core

categories of the analysis, concepts, and dimensions (Creswell, 2015).

Sixth, the researcher validated the accuracy of the findings. Validating the accuracy of the

findings was imperative in qualitative research due to the inductive interpretative and iterative

process so called authenticity and trustworthiness (Creswell, 2015). Creswell discussed essential

practices: triangulation, member check, auditing along with the researcher’ bracketing, and study

limitation at the forefront. The researcher brought back and forth the narrative stories to the

participants for more information to fill in gaps as analysis progressed. Checking with the

participants for accuracy whether or not the accounts, themes were fair and representative was

the researcher’s goal.

59
 In conclusion, the content analysis technique guided the data analysis and interpretation

of the planned data collection above. The content analysis is a systematic approach that allows

the researcher to replicate and compress words into text, into fewer content categories, regulated

by explicit rules of coding (Creswell, 2015). The analysis and interpretation aligned with the

research questions, and the purpose of the study through the built description and emerged

themes (Creswell, 2015). The above procedure, comparative narrative analysis supports

understanding and interpretation of the participant's account, and it was not be based on any

theory, hypothesis or statistical significance, such as the quantitative analysis researcher would

do. The semi-structured interviews allowed participants to tell their construct (accounts) as they

engaged with new literacies and emerging digital technology practices, while the researcher used

participants’ words to visualize a realistic viewpoint of their perspective.

Trustworthiness of the Data

Bracketing is a method used by some researchers to mitigate the potentially deleterious

effects of unacknowledged preconceptions related to the research and thereby to increase the

rigor of the project (Tufford and Newman, 2010). It is important to disclose the researcher’s

background, value, beliefs, and to distinguish the researcher’s views from the participants’. Data

analysis through the previous procedures and measures ensured that the theory developed from

the study was developed with the minimum bias of background and beliefs emerging from the

researcher, reader, and participants are anticipated. Some emerging disclosure of the participants

are available in chapter 5, under the limitation of the study.

Ethical Considerations

McMillan and Schumacher (2006) stated that ethical guidelines include policies

regarding informed consent, deception, confidentiality, anonymity, privacy, and caring. Ethical

60
issues to protect the anonymity of participants and of the research sites, adhere to IRB rules, and

ensure permission consent forms of all parties involved was considered a fundamental step in the

qualitative analysis. However, researchers must adapt these principles in complex situations and

have to devise ways to elicit cooperation, trust, openness, and honesty.

Administrators and staff were advised of the informed consent to the research and

permission obtained from the superintendent to conduct research in the school district.

Participants were informed that participation in the research is voluntary. The researcher was

committed to protecting the privacy of all participants. Participants and their schools were not

identified. The recorded data was be coded, transcribed, and stored in the researcher’ computer.

If new findings uncover a new body of knowledge that conflict with the purpose of future

studies and research questions, then conflicting arguments were to be presented, shaped by the

theoretical frameworks selected (i.e., Danielson Framework for Teaching, 2015; Transcendental

Leadership Theory, 2006).

Limitations

It is important to recognize in qualitative research design, validity is a top priority.

Throughout the study, there could be teachers who did not disclose information fully with

fidelity and loyalty to the profession because of the proximity with the administration of the

school community. The interview questions were crafted to reduce bias and used the language in

the literature review to minimize bias.

The sub-interview questions presented above sought to assess and describe in details

teachers’ assumption, behavior, attitudes, and interest in digital technologies inside the classroom

and beyond (i.e., remotely), and how it supported achievement. As noted by Maxwell (1992), the

development of the researcher’s account would be shaped by the participants’ perspective (e.g.,

61
descriptive, interpretative, and theoretical validity) and the purpose of the observer. The

researcher will take into account that descriptions must be thick, rich, and from different

perspectives that describe the individual’s action, setting, actions, and behavior (Maxwell, 1992).

Similarly, putting a threat to validity, description and reflection was kept separately, while

triangulation of multiple sources and the implementation of member check was encouraged

(Maxwell, 1992).

Summary

This chapter described the research method implemented. The qualitative findings

resulting from the analysis will address the research questions contextualized in the literature

review, theoretical framework, the content comparative analysis technique selected, and the

purpose of the study. Chapter 4 will present the findings of the study for text or elaborated figure

format.

62
 Chapter 4: Findings

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore teacher’s perceptions of technology integration

in teaching (7-8 grades) Latinx students in the context of the classroom and beyond in an urban

area in a northeastern state of the United States. The study aimed to discover how this integration

of perceptions informed and can inform pedagogical practices through equity and access for all

right before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Fox and Jones (2018) argued that temporary and

emerging digital technologies have impacted pedagogy and curriculum while practitioners,

students, and policymakers thrive for new and improved proven practices along with a set of

skills and knowledge to meet the needs of an innovative knowledge economy.

Chapter 4 introduces to a summary of the findings, demographic of the participants

(Table 1), the responses of participants’ interview questions, the description of important

emerging themes articulated by the participants, and finally an analysis ? summary of the

research findings and conclusions.

Interviews

The researcher conducted educator interviews for this study. Interviews contained ten

sub-research questions aimed to explore and discover the participants’ integration of technology

and its impact on ELL instruction, participants’ awareness to identify benefits and challenges

that drive the reimagination of school mission, and lastly participants’ understanding and

connection of computer science (CS), equitable access, social media, technology-based

curriculum, and technology-based differentiation.

63
 Data Analysis

Upon completion of all interviews, the researcher began analyzing the data. The

qualitative analysis attempted to comprehend the phenomenon under study, synthesize

information, and explain the relationships that emerged. As outlined in Chapter 3, this qualitative

basic study utilized the content analysis technique, which guided the data analysis and

interpretation of the interview transcripts collected by the researcher. The content analysis is a

systematic approach that allows the researcher to replicate and compress words into text, then

into fewer content categories, and finally regulated by explicit rules of coding (Creswell, 2015).

The researcher listened to the recorded interviews multiple times to become familiar with the

data and began looking for similarities within the data to develop themes or trends. All

interviews were transcribed written and verbatim into electronic format through REV.com. The

researcher continued to read the transcription and reflective journal to correlate any researcher

thoughts with interview data. A step by step protocol was followed and described below:

First, the researcher started with a general idea (i.e., digital technology integration from

the standpoint of equity and access) aiming to discover experiences and perceptions that

answered the structured research questions. Next, the researcher prepared and organized the data

for analysis by reading the first transcripts several times, immersed in detail, asking “what is this

person talking about?;” then writing in the margin two or three words, memo-ing, and

conducting the analysis for deeper understanding before breaking data in tables or figures.

Second, the researcher explored and coded data for the second and third transcripts for

emerging codes and concepts aligned to the structured-research questions. This was an

interactive process, simultaneously going from the data analysis and collection in the early stage

to begin coding and identifying text segments and assigned code labels as it emerged. If an

64
emerging concept was developed, the researcher took time to reflect how important these

concepts were and what they meant in relation to the research questions. The actual goal was

identifying, naming, categorizing, and describing phenomena through continually evaluating and

co-constructed experiences with the transcripts (Creswell, 2015).

Third, the researcher described findings and formed themes. If more than 30-50 codes

evolved from the transcripts, the researcher reduced them to five to seven major themes

considering redundancies, and unexpected themes (Creswell, 2015). The researcher looked out

for themes that emerged in the analysis that reflected contrary evidence that did not support the

theme. Saturation (i.e., not more emerging new codes), layering themes (interconnect themes),

interrelating themes (i.e., chair of the department) were considered. Axial coding is the process

of relating codes to each other (Creswell, 2015). In the analysis process it was very important to

study relationships with other categories, frequency of occurrence to get abstract concepts (e.g.,

core categories). Next, the researcher wrote descriptive sentences and memos (e.g., dialogues,

narratives) that answered the research questions in the form of narrative report.

Fourth, the researcher represented and reported the findings. Creswell (2015) suggested

researchers use a variety of visuals. The researcher used tables, narrative discussion that

summarize detailed findings from data analysis, description and themes, and interconnecting

themes to answer the central and sub-research questions.

Fifth, the researcher interpreted the meaning of the findings described in chapter 4 in

chapter 5. Interpretation gravitated around the interpretation of the data findings, lesson learned,

personal view and previous studies to enlarge some meaning considering the problem, methods,

discussion, and results, limitations, and recommendation for future research. The researcher

wrote the point of view in the systematic approach in the third person objectively in a tone

65
supported by the literature review in chapter II, and the emerging literature review from the core

categories of the analysis, concepts, and dimensions (Creswell, 2015).

Lastly, the researcher validated the accuracy of the findings. Validating the accuracy of

the findings was imperative in qualitative research due to the inductive interpretative and

iterative process so called authenticity and trustworthiness (Creswell, 2015). Creswell discussed

essential practices: triangulation, member check, auditing along with the researcher’ bracketing,

and study limitation at the forefront. The researcher brought back and forth the narrative stories

to the participants for more information to fill in gaps as analysis progressed. Checking with the

participants for accuracy whether or not the accounts, themes were fair and representative was

the researcher’s goal.

Participant Description

Table 2 illustrates educator demographics for this study. In order to provide a context for

understanding the results and to develop a rich narrative about these findings, a brief profile of

each participant's background was captured during the interview and described in Table 1 to

anchor research findings in the real world though their riched vivid experiences and enthusiasm

demonstrated toward the topic describing research themes from the beginning of data collection

to data analysis. The participants were three females and 8 males. Most of the participants have

taught more than one grade in middle school in content areas, such as English, literature, math,

special education, science, or computer tech class.

Educators were assigned the letter P, followed by a number, from 1-11. Each interview

was conducted via Zoom at the participating schools in a northeastern school district, whose

population is comprised of 96% Latinx students. Participants 1, 9, and 11 are former ELLs in the

U.S., who attended schools in urban settings. Participants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 have taken several

66
professional development credits in Computer Science at the district. Each interview lasted

between 30 to 45 minutes. Interviews included semi-structured questions so that all educators

would respond to the same questions with the option to discuss or further explain their personal

responses. The researcher kept a reflective journal with annotations regarding the researcher’s

observations and reflection on body language, emotion reactions from the participants during the

Zoom interview process.

67
Table 2

Demographics of Participants

Participants Years of Gender Grade Subject(s) Degree Remarks

Experience Male during the
Female Interview
Participant 1 24 M 7th Math MS in Latino,
Computer Former ELL
Science Earned CS
degree,
Proud Latino
Participant 2 28 M 8th Math MS Bilingual Latino, PD in
Mathematic CS,
Computer Creative,
Science Positive
attitude
Participant 3 15 M 6th, 7th Math MS African
Education American
Computer Energetic,
Science earned PD in
CS
Participant 4 25 M 6th, 7th Math MS in African
Computer American
Computer Technology PD in CS
Science Positive
Hopeful
Participant 5 11 M 7th ELA MS in Latino,
Education Skeptical
Participant 6 23 F 7th, 8th ELA MS TESOL Latina,
Proactive,
Hopeful
Stressful
Participant 7 31 M 7th, 8th Social MS History Latino,
Studies, ELA Synergetic,
Hopeful
Participant 8 5 F 6th 7th ELA MS Bilingual Latina,
Computer Education Synergetic,
Science thoughtful
Innovator,
earned CS
Participant 9 3 M 8th Math, EL MS Special Latino,
Social Education Former ELL
Studies Political
Synergetic
Growth
Mindset
Educator 10 23 M 8th ELA MS in Mass Latino,
Social Media Pro-technolo
Studies gy
Synergetic,
Advocacy,
Optimism
Educator 11 23 F 7th 8th ELA MS TESOL Latina,
Former ELL

68
Participants’ Integration of Technology and its Impact in ELL Instruction

The following section covers Question 1, “How would you describe the use of

Technology in your subject area with ELLs population?” and Question 2, “ How did the

COVID-19 pandemic impact your perception of technology integration in your subject area and

how did this perception change especially addressing ELLs population?

The purpose of Question 1 and Question 2 was to explore and discover participants’

experiences integrating technology right before and after COVID-19, and its impact in ELL

instruction.

Figure 1 illustrates how educators use and describe technology integration with ELL

students despite some challenges. Most teachers, (73%) use and describe the technology with

ELLs in their subject areas as a means to support the curriculum, to reinforce practices, to

facilitate opportunities for self-improvement, and to infuse coding languages. However, some

teachers experienced challenges upon implementation. Some others explained the need for

ELLs-based assessments and differentiation techniques as the catalyst to engage remote learning.

Figure 1

Teacher’s Description of How to Use Technology with English Language Learners (Question 1)
Most common themes Challenges Next Steps
Support the curriculum No blueprint curriculum for E-Assessment ELLs-Centered
Exploring topics, Research integration
Coding, Vocabulary Limited ELLs resources Tech-based differentiation
Editing, Social Network Not consistency in use
Typing, fluency Poor Infract structure

Seventy-three percent of participants jointly explained satisfaction-integrating technology

with ELLs. For example, Participant 9 and Participant 10 explained that students and teachers

can benefit from technology integration. Students used technology for exploring math topics for

research, editing their work, and enhancing their vocabulary to reinforce their home language.

69
Participant 9 commented that he used technology to augment and enhance students’ vocabulary

by typing and editing their work. Participant10 perceived technology to be productive for both

teachers and students. Participant 10 also shared that teachers can enhance teaching and expose

students to a variety of online resources that support their learning needs and levels. He

concluded that students can also enhance their listening skills, phonemic awareness, and research

capabilities.

Creating Programs

Participant 3 and Participant 4 (18%) used digital technology software programs to

promote Computer Science competencies (i.e., collaboration, creativity). Participant 3 explained

that he used technology to explore math topics for several days in specific sites through

codeacademy.com. He added the transition to remote learning was positive because students

accessed lab cart before the pandemic. Likewise, Participant 4 designed and created coding

projects with his students using the scratch language platform. He shared that although the

platform offered some challenges for accessibilities, Scratch programming have been very

productive technology integration for ELLs. He said that Scratch commands and general

instructions come in different languages for accessibility. He explained, “...students could be

saying something, and the students could basically hear it in their own language or see images as

the student receives instant feedback.” Another accessibility feature is that students also “... can

switch to a different language as the programming blocks can be used and written in a different

language.”

70
 Challenges for Implementation

Lack of Technology Curriculum or Blueprint

Unfortunately, some other educators faced some challenges for implementation.

Participant 3, explained that there was not specific curriculum at the school how to integrate

technology in the curriculum, and the limited ELLs resources online into their home language

leaving ELLs at disadvantage. Limited ELL resources in their home language was also

corroborated by Participant 11. Likewise, Participant 6 explained that even though there was a

lab cart at the school, there was not consistency using technology every day.

No Devices or Wi-Fi

Another challenges for implementation according to Participant 9 is the poor

infrastructure. He acknowledged that technology is essential as a network for delivering and

assessing students’ learning experiences attending to the Shelter. He added that at the beginning

of March 2020, “Most of our students lack the technological resources, ownership of tablets,

computers, any other electronic devices, and lack of Wi-Fi connection.”

Lack of Assessment Tools

Two veteran teacher participants, Participant 1 and Participant 11, discussed the needs of

ELL-based assessments tools and differentiation practices for engagement. Participant 1

explained that as ELL himself, 23 years ago, assessment was conducted to identify his current

level of achievement. He hopes that technology can help assess to identify students levels of

achievement and their learning modalities with emerging digital technologies. He argued that this

kind of support is very difficult to obtained from the administration . He said, that “your failures

on not assessing where the kid is at, but because of age for placing them in a specific grade is

morally wrong.”

71
Differentiation and Motivation

In conclusion, Participant 11 also encourages the use of technology for students’

differentiation and motivation. She explained that before COVID-19, 23 years ago technology

was a big motivational tool to engage students to enhance their learning experiences.

Differentiating instruction was at the center of the hub sustained by appropriation from grant

writing. She shared, “I remember the kids always enjoyed technology. I remember because we

had the ELLs... If there were different ELLS, like a big umbrella, but there's different

subgroups...”

Figure 2 illustrates how educators use and describe technology integration with ELL

students despite some challenges. Ninety-nine percent of participants (99%) interviewed

demonstrated that their perceptions were significantly impacted by many challenges (i.e., lack of

preparedness, digital divide, distraction) during COVID-19 out- brake when delivering and

sharing content knowledge through Google Classroom or Zoom platforms. However, some

educators thrived during the disruption by adopting some workable solutions, while others just

expressed frustration for the obstacles beyond their control.

Figure 2

Teacher’s Description of How to Use Technology with English Language Learners (Question 2)
Most common themes Challenges Next Steps
Support the curriculum No blueprint curriculum for E-Assessment ELLs-Centered
Exploring topics, Research integration
Coding, Vocabulary Limited ELLs resources Tech-based differentiation
Editing, Social Network Not consistency in use
Typing, fluency Poor Infrastructure

Anonymous Survey
Participant 1, impacted by the challenges of the pandemic decided to continue with the

routines, but this time generating an anonymous survey. He explained that there were many

challenges early March. Then, he just replicated the routines from face-to-face instruction by

72
using Power Point slides and recorded voices. Students submitted assignment or pictures through

emails. But as new kids were enrolled and new content was introduced, he decided to survey

students anonymously about what worked, and what did not work remotely to generate data

driven decision making (DDDM) to inform instruction. He explained,

“I then realized, there was a lot of home distractions, lack of self-discipline, and lack of

self-regulation to accomplish the task. That is when I realized that I had to make an

anonymous survey to identify students’ needs and wants to adjust instruction.”

(Participant 1).

Social Emotional, then Cognitive Learning

Participant 2 and Participant 8 shifted priorities from cognitive learning to social

emotional learning. Participant P2 stated that while students used to use technology to work at

their own pace before the pandemic, there was a need to shift priorities at some points to address

Social Emotional Learning (SEL) to thrive daily. Most of the time, students demonstrated the

need for engagement and were persistent in the task, but unfortunately it was not happening.

Participant 2, also explained that on many occasions, “...the students needed more

social-emotional support rather than assistance with classwork and assignment.” Like participant

2, Participant P8 also added that before the pandemic students were more engaged. Students,

however, used the technology as consumers of video games. During Covid-19 they engaged in

doing their work on their own pace. Surprisingly, students’ engagement gradually diminished as

they demanded more social networking. She concluded that “students weren't really focused on

completing schoolwork, but more focused on their social circles falling.”

73
Attitude and Collaboration

In addition to the previous shifting priorities (i.e., Maslow before Bloom), participant 11,

10, 7,5, 4, 3 perceived that during a disruption, educators’ attitude needed to embrace innovation,

collaboration, building relationship, and fostering support among stakeholders. Participant 11

states very passionately that integrating technology in learning is a win-win experience. During

Covid-19, technology-based practices have been a rewarding experience for both students and

teachers to stay connected beyond school walls. Regardless the obstacles or unexpected lesson

goals, technology allows educators to continue teaching their students, making them feel loved

and important. For example, during small breakout rooms in Google Meet, educators can

personalize learning and observe students’ facial expressions without students wearing a mask.

However, the lack of engagement, lack of Total Physical Response (TPR) associated with affect

factors (i.e., emotions, feeling) impacted engagement and participation negatively among

struggling ELL students. She stated,

“... during this COVID pandemic, I'm grateful for it really, because technology has been

the bridge between educator and home for us to continue interacting with children.”

…But just being there, the use of technology allows us to be there and they know that

we're there and I think they feel love.” (Participant 11)

Innovation and Creativity

On the other hand, Participant 10 added the importance of developing innovation,

creativity for all. He stated that to adapt oneself to the new normal more integration is essential

nowadays. It has been a positive move. Technology has always been used in the classroom.

During the pandemic, it has been an opportunity to become an innovator for both educators and

students as one becomes more exposed and adapted to new emerging learning. Thinking

74
forward, there should be more technology integration in the school curriculum. He concluded

that “... 23 years ago, whether it was using the radio to play music, to enhance vocabulary and

their pronunciation.”

Collaboration and Building Relationships

Collaboration, building relationship and support among stakeholders was a sign to drive

success. Participant 4, stated that after March, remote learning interrupted student’s services that

traditional school classroom provided. For many years, studies have shown that building strong

relationships between teacher-student, and teacher-family improve student’s social emotional

learning experiences and consequently the academic. When students received family support at

home, they can and will do better. By contrast, without family support, students are left behind.

During Covid-19 “...language barrier provided an extra layer in which the students were not able

to do the work as well or not at all, because either they didn't have someone at home to help

them.

Challenging and Frustrating

However, several participants experienced some challenges. Participants 6, 3, and 9

perceived technology integration very frustrating since some obstacles were beyond their reach!

For example, participant 6 states that at first, she felt surprised as she wished she were prepared

to teach remotely, especially if a new ELL student arrived. She argued that

“There were no other choices, the moment is now.” There was a lot of innovation and

creativity to learn, deliver, and learn content, especially with the ELLs community. I

used routines, very often I said, “ remember how we did this on the computer? We looked

up this, we’re still doing this.” So that helps but it doesn’t always help because I have a

75
 lot of new students now. It was always easier to provide support to older students, than

new arrivals. In fact, it is very overwhelming you work more form home and learning

never stop. Again she exclaimed: ...honestly it’s overwhelming. It is incredibly stressful.

The last eight months has been very stressful.”

Lack of Access

Likewise, Participant 3 states some obstacles regardless of student's familiarity with the

platform. He stated that COVID-19 took us by surprise with minimum time to practice. Luckily,

the school was familiar with a platform that students used to access in math and geometry.

However, many students did not have a laptop or Wi-Fi connection. This phenomenon became a

common denominator. In most cases collegial support among teachers was very common at the

school. Finally, Participant 3, claimed, “they needed access to a computer or adapting to a device

with Internet access. Which proved to be difficult for some students, especially for the ELL

students.”

Students who lacked access to a device or Wi-Fi were at the center. Participant 9

explained that regardless of his previous experiences of remote learning at college level, the

struggle and frustration were at the center due to the lack of access of the device and lack of

preparedness. He stated that although he had some previous experiences taking virtual classes

from college, technology integration seemed challenging, but necessary moving forward. In the

beginning, technology integration made you feel skeptical, professionally, and academically.

The major impact was to strive to continue teaching ELLs throughout the disruption even though

students were lacking the devices and poor connectivity. Neither teachers nor students were

prepared and trained to perform under these circumstances. Lesson learned; the new normal is

flexibility and adaptability. Participant 9, succinctly stated ,

76
 “... the lack of access to technological resources makes the situation more challenging

and difficult, for our ELLs...” “…our students, are the best example that we were not

prepared to transition to this model, to this situation. So COVID-19 changes everything

in teaching and learning.” (Participant 9)

The next section focuses on Question 3 and Question 4 which elicited participants’

experiences, challenges, and success upon technology implementation and its contribution to

reimagine school mission.

Question 3: Have you ever encountered any issues implementing technology in your practices,

especially with the ELLs population?

The purpose of question 3 and 4 was to explore and discover participants’ awareness to

identify benefits and challenges of face-to-face and remote learning to the re-imagine the school

mission.

As illustrated in Figure 3, most participants faced several issues implementing technology in

their practices with ELLs locally and students who were still abroad from February Recess,

2019. Seven out of eleven participants found accessibility to a device and Wi-Fi connectivity the

most common roadblock for implementation. The digital divide was followed by limited

experiences from the students to use the tools properly, teacher’s content delivery and limited

resources available, and lastly language issue and home support.

77
Figure 3

Barriers for Technology Implementation with English Language Learners (Question 3)

Most barriers found Descriptors Participants

Digital Divide Access and connectivity for digital Partincipants1,2,7, 8, and 9

Digital use divide locally and
abroad
Distraction lack of focus
Help Log In, Navigate Platform
Instructional delivery and sharing
content
Lack of strategic assessment
Limited ELL resources
Language barrier
More home support
tools
Time to adapt and learn how to use Participant 2, and 9
tools
Understanding the culture of remote
learning and the next steps
Multimodal features in Zoom and Participant 8
Google Classroom and Log in and
navigating the pages (I.e. Tech
Literacy)
New ELLs would take too long to Participant 1 and 6
do the task even though we used
routines and repetition.
Specific assessment for placement Participant 1 and 11
and DDDM to inform instruction
Non-Ells, English Language
Learner have more resources
Home language formed another Participant 1, 2, and 5
layer to technology language.
Parents were special point of
contacts, however, lacked
knowledge of how to use the tools

Digital Divide and Digital Use Divide

Both, local district students and students abroad were impacted by the inequity of access.

Participant 2 explained that many students did not have Wi-Fi access at home. Participant 2

reported there have been some issues implementing technology with the ELLS population

because many times they have not been able to access technology at home. Introducing them to

technology is game-changing, some catch on very quickly and are able to produce great work

while some take a while to adapt to the technology and feel comfortable using it to complete

their work.

Students locally, as well as those students who traveled abroad, were affected by the

digital divide and distraction too. Participant 8 remarked that both, students abroad and in the

78
district, had poor infrastructure and distraction with the interactive network. For a prolonged

period, students who were on vacation working synchronously experienced difficulties with

connectivity and WI-FI. American-born ELLs in the U.S. demonstrated more familiarity

navigating the network but were frequently distracted by the screen options and multimodal

features (i.e., mute, unmuted, and chat). Most of the time, accessibility to Google platform on a

daily basis was not great due to connectivity. In addition, Participant 8 explained “... features on

Zoom or Google Meet while the ELLs get distracted with all the options on the screen...”

Participant 1, like Participant 8, agreed that the lack of device and connectivity put both teachers

and students at a disadvantage to achieve academic goals and full engagement.

The digital divide was more common and real. Similarly, some participants expressed the

inability for some students to use the digital tools appropriately. Participant 2 claimed that,

“...some take a while to adapt to the technology and feel comfortable using it to complete

their work.” Likewise, Participant 9 agreed at the beginning it was chaotic for students to

get connected and fully understand the culture of remote learning and next steps. “ It was

the first-time the school district created students’ usernames and passwords.”

Digital Divide, but with Support

Participant 9 and Participant 7 said that even at the beginning the transition of remote

learning was unfamiliar. Later, with collective support from the district task support center, the

transition to remote learning became more productive. While this is new to all, we are still

confronting challenges with the new normal. He continued to explain, “now we have to make

paperwork for us to work and for our students, ...we have to meet them till they're through.” The

school district’s collective effort was generating paperwork, and textbooks to be distributed to

students who face challenges with connectivity. Most of the connectivity challenges in the

79
beginning were a result of the district offices issuing usernames and passwords to our students in

order for them to join the Google Classroom Platform. Likewise, Participant 7, corroborated

similar experiences. He remarked,

“At the beginning there was some infrastructure such as Wi-Fi, but as today due to the

support of task force team things have been much better.” Participant 7 explained, “…because

an IT center team usually will help them quickly to resolve their problems.

Distraction, Log in, and Navigating the Web

While the digital use divided existed, the distraction due to the multimodal features and

navigating the web page grew more and more. Participant 10 explained that while there were few

issues logging in and navigating through the web page, interaction and sharing was the most

challenging obstacle. He stated that there were few issues logging in and more with interactivity

during synchronous learning. For example, checking for accountability, social presence, and

teaching at the same time is challenging. Finally, he remarked that it was, “... kind of challenging

to have students come live every time you have to teach them a lesson.”

Instructional Delivery, Assessment, and Resources

When educating ELLs, strategic assessment and on time adequate resources are essential.

Participant 6 explained how delivering the content became challenging and time-consuming,

especially for new arrivals. She stated that delivering content and instructions were very

challenging. Before Covid-19, students had the opportunity to benefit from Total Physical

Response (TPR), and other techniques. Online learning takes longer to learn a simple command,

as a lot of repetition was required. Participant 6 explained,

80
 They have a difficult time understanding it just because I'm not there in the classroom,

explaining it to them, showing it to them on the smart board. Something that could take

only 20 minutes will take with them three days.

Lack of Strategic Assessment

In addition to instructional delivery, strategic assessments play a significant role in ELLs.

Participant 1 explained that assessment on ELLs can drive instruction, especially if it is used for

data driven decision making (DDDM), to inform instruction, differentiation, and placement,

It really matters, the level of the other students, we tend to have in education, for some

reason, we don't tend to adjust, we go extreme. In many cases, you need to consider

students with interrupt instruction. “If I came here, and I was and maybe I went to school,

maybe up to fourth grade in my country, and I came here. And because of my age, you

put me on eighth grade classroom... (Participant 1)

Limited Resources

Participant 11 stated that finding resources for ELLs is challenging compared to the

non-ELLs counterparts. She explained,

... It's easier, it's more accessible to find curriculum for non-ELLs.” Yes. So let's take, for

example, the regular curriculum. Even now, with this remote instruction, we have regular

curriculum for... It's easier, it's more accessible to find curriculum for non-ELLs. For

ELLs, you always have to dig deeper. Go the extra mile. And even when you find

something that might work with the kids, you still have to really modify that.

81
 Language Barrier and Home Support

Other than limited resources, four participants named language barrier and home support

as other roadblocks that prevent success. Participant 3 stated that despite the digital divide in the

first place, “..then language barriers for ELL learners, and family who became the first line

supporter remotely. Students who actually do not have a good mastery of the English language, it

can prove to be very, very difficult and challenging.”

Alternative assessment is a key, Participant 4 supported the need to have differentiated

plans to boost communication. He stated, “Communication language is a barrier. It is encouraged

to have alternative plans (i.e., translation, support, accessibilities) with student, especially when

you rely too much on technology. You want to prevent students be left behind during crisis.”

Parents or caregivers, who played a significant role supporting their children at home,

were lacking knowledge and support. Participant 5 stated that students did not use technology

very often. Students required a great amount of help, regardless of the exposure of technology at

school. During Covid-19, educators need parents’ collaboration as they were the only point of

contact at home. However, they were not prepared to support their children nor the educators.

But, as the task force provided support, things got better. Participant 5 said, “Unfortunately, our

Hispanic population of parents lack knowledge about technologies in most of the cases.” In

closing, Participant 3 stated that as the language presented a barrier for their children, their

“...family became the first line of supporter remotely.”

COVID-19 has caused a disruption in education. The impact of reshaping the school

mission from the view of face-to-face, and remote learning participants’ perspectives, are very

diverse and complex through an evolving economy. To better understand this phenomenon,

middle school educators’ input is described. The most common emerging themes are the benefits

82
of face-to-face, the benefits of remote learning, teacher’s and students’ challenges, equity, online

student’s discipline, parental support, persistence and attitude, and elements of school mission.

Question 4 asked about the advantages and disadvantages of traditional face-to-face education

versus remote learning and the teachers recent experiences about reimaging education.

Face-to-Face Learning Benefits

More than half of the participants made references about how face-to-face learning

facilitate deeper understanding and more opportunities for personal collaboration around affect

factors (i.e., feelings, emotions) (Fig. 4). They strongly believed that face-to-face instruction is

conducive to learning by exposing ELLs to total physical response (TPR) in achieving success.

83
Figure 4
Face-to-Face and Challenges of Remote and its Impact in the School Mission Emerging Themes
Benefits of face-to-face Benefits of remote Challenges Integrating Shaping the school
learning Technology mission?

Affect factors Instant feedback Discipline and distraction Adapt to high quality
Deeper understanding and accountability. tools aligned to trade tools
Tools do not mirror trade
Personal collaboration work own pace and military Embrace positive
Poor attitude in Webcam, inclusive collaborative
Total physical response Plethora resources for PD for differentiation culture
differentiation
More preference Lack of equity access of Rethink and reimagine
Teacher and students are high-quality resources school culture for
Personalized relationship co-learners learning/PD
Lack of parent support
Personalized break out Tech evolving in crisis More access to
room and students’ ethics interdisciplinary
collaboration planning
Synchronous, Uncomfortable in the
asynchronous task, Webcam, digital divide, Reimagine pedagogy
equitable access is now!,
Ubiquitous access emerging, challenge still
exists, No excuse in SES, more
integration for
Still premature waits for
differentiation
1, 2, 10 years

Keep up with persistent, More responsible teaching

learn how to learn online.

84
 Participant 2, like several of the other participants explained, that the “ELL population, is

subject to total physical response learning (TPR) and being able to work with others in person

while acquiring a second language. “Face-to-face education also allows for deeper understanding

through teachers’ and students’ voices and body language.” Likewise, Participant 8 added that

face-to-face versus remote instruction offers great and effective opportunity to simultaneously

build personal relationships through the learning process. Looking at the whole child learning in

this crisis, Participant 5 commented, that in-person learning has been very essential to develop

creativity and learning experiences through authentic social interaction, feelings, and emotions.

Participant 8 shared,

“I also feel that face-to-face education allows us as teachers to create better relationships

with the students so that they feel more comfortable to learn because without them being

present mentally and physically, it's hard to catch onto all of their understanding.”

Participant 9 stated, face-to-face is an “effective method because you learn a lot, you

learn better, and you are encountering personally the learning experience with the teachers.”

Remote Learning Benefits

More than half participants considered that technology integration continues to offer a lot

of benefits to ELLs as the digital technology evolves.

Access and Sharing

Technology can facilitate differentiation, feedback, and organization through

synchronous and asynchronous activities. Access and attitude impact learning. Participant 2

stated that technology “could work well remotely as well, but that is only if these students are

grouped to work together through Zoom/Meet and have webcam access to be willing and able to

85
see one another.” Learning is personalized and actively evolving. Participant 2 said, ” instant

feedback as the students submit their work individually allows them to constantly improve their

work quality.” In addition, since the work is all online, there is no paper mess or possibility of

misplacing work.

Learning Together

Teachers and students learn from each other as technology emerges. Participants 6 added

that remote learning experiences were a win-win for both teachers and students who became

co-learners and co-creators of knowledge and skills during the educational disrupt. She shared,

“It's nice to use technology because everything is done on the computer. But at the same

time," I understand you're learning but guess what? So am I, I'm learning too. We're

doing this together and we're just going to make the best out of it. (Participant 6)

The same experiences of learning together teacher and students were supported by

participant 11. She stated,

“The kids are also so fantastic. These children know so much about technology and this is

something that I share with them always. I'm like, "My guys, we are learning from each

other, you know?" So, so they, sometimes we go on Google Meet or Zoom, and we talk.”

One day, I'm trying to present. And I'm like, "Okay, so let me do this." And this kid is

walking me through. I call him my IT guy.”

Ubiquitous Exposure

Students and teachers were exposed to multiple platforms and choices. Participant 5

stated that remote students were exposed to multiple type of technology for differentiation,

engagement, and acceleration of their learning. He credited that “pros, well, there's many

86
platforms that we can use at the same time to help better our kids to get more resources for them.

Even though, to give the choices for them, technology helps us better and quickly.” Moreover,

Participant 8 claimed that in general, practitioners during synchronous tasks could facilitate

students prompt and immediate feedback, utilize break out rooms for small instruction and pop

up supports during break up rooms, and deliver instruction, grading, organizing, and re-teach

with accountability.

Lastly, remote learning is an alternative learning model where student’s voice and access

to resources can be reached in reduced class sizes, and alternative assessment can be performed.

Participant 10 passionately explained that remote learning is an alternative tool for

homeschooling if the child is physically handicapped since there are many school building

lacking accessibility. To achieve educational equity, Google Classrooms can be used for

engaging students doing entry and exit slip at least, to post asynchronous tasks, and to give

students and parents instant feedback about their children’s learning experiences. For example,

“using technology, you get the ability to get work from every student, give them feedback, send

them back, and the student will return to you leaving the evidence of the learning experience.”

He then added the future of integration of technology is fundamental to combat class size,

instructional differentiation, and to provide equity and access for all. Finally, Participant 10

explained, “... you know, you're home lonely, but when it comes to using technology, he has it all

there, so it is an advantage for the student. Technology must be integrated in schools for

differentiation.”

Challenges

Despite the many advantages of remote learning, educators shared the following

challenges about their experiences during COVID-19, i.e., equitable access and high-quality

87
tools, online student’s behavior, parental support, the need to persistent in learning and how to

learn, and positive attitude.

Teachers

Teachers’ access to high quality tools to educate children is significant to motivate

students. Current digital tools in the learning workplace must be competitive to those technology

used in trade and military. Participant 1 emphatically claimed that business tools are more

advanced than the technology tool in the classroom. He said,

...but the sad part is that the business world will have more advanced technology than we

have, we get the analog of the spectrum in terms of technology. So that becomes an issue.

Because, for example, if you look at the kid's video games nowadays, that they are

engaging, we don't have that. We don't have that technology in our own remote learning

or any type of technology, we're not. (Participant 1)

Similarly, the military has advanced technology, too. He shared that his friends told him that in

Vietnam Smart boards were being used at war for instruction. “...Vietnam, and this smart boards

and stuff like that, they used to do that into the Vietnam War to talk about war and explain to the

troops and stuff like that.”

Participant 1, alluding to the manipulative used, claimed,

So we need to invest more money on matching the technology that the kids are using

nowadays with the one that we use in the classroom.” classroom, graphing calculator for

algebra one, they look prehistoric, they still look like pixels.

88
Students

There are challenges submitting the task as well as lack of proper resources at home. If

students do not submit the work, it may be due to several factors. Participant 4 claimed,

When students have to submit their work, they would tell me they did this, they did that.

But if they cannot submit it, then therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they didn't do it, even

though they may have done it, but for whatever reason, some of them had problems in

terms of submitting their work. Even if I explain to them how to do it, it could have been

a problem with their own technology, in terms of the equipment that they were using,

they were not able to submit it properly. ...as equity goes, like I said, if your students

have a nice computer working, there's no problem with it, then that's fine, but if you have

a device that you are using, that's not working properly, then of course, that basically

hinders.

In addition to the device operationally, home environment and manipulative can be

significant for learning. For example, “Let's say, if I'm doing a problem in which it requires them

to have something physical, let's say they need to have a graph paper, if they don't have graph

paper at home.” Participant 4 agreed that it's hard to achieve also when you don't know what's

going on in the student's home, whether or not they have enough space to do their work, whether

or not they have the proper tools to meet the performance standard. Participant 7 shared that

every student had a laptop, but the Wi-Fi is still something that one needs to worry about.

Online Discipline

Other than the lack of equity and access of high-quality resources, student behavior was

significant. Five participants explained that students’ distraction and discipline have been the

most challenging indicators. Participant 1 explained, that while remotely learning is a

89
supplementary education, students’ distraction is questionable. He shared, “It's very hard for you

to get educated remotely, unless you are very disciplined. That's the key, so we need the kid to be

very disciplined. And at that age, that sometimes is lacking, even for adults.” Participant 1

concluded, “It's very hard to have, I don't know, 15, 16, 30 faces in Zoom and see that when

there's tons of distractions behind them, or they don't want to express themselves in front of their

parents.” Participant 7 suggested, “...the teacher has to depend on many factors, such as

[inaudible 00:03:18] in teaching this and student discipline in order for them to be engaged in the

learning process.” Engagement online is essential. Participant 3 shared, “for learners to be

engaged and successful the learner required self-discipline and stronger parent-students

relationship at home. This relationship was lacking.” Participant 8 supported participant 1 and

participant 3. She claimed, “...that remote learning doesn't allow for every child to get this access

to a good education because they get so distracted being that they're behind the screen. We don't

know what they're doing at all times.” Students’ accountability was also another challenge.

Participant 7 argued that students tend to lie to their parents about being at the school, "Yeah. I'm

in school right now. "But in reality, they're not.”

Parent Support

Just like students’ discipline, parent support was challenging. Three of the participants

believed that although some parents supported their children, others had to go to work and

believed that school must oversee students. Participant 7 pointed out that students frequently

pretend to be online when they are not. “And parents have to go to work and students are home

alone. Right?” Participant 4 agreed with Participant 7 and added,

That's something which I find to be problematic, because some parents, especially with

the ELL students, they figure that the school knows what we are doing. They say, "the

90
 school will take care of it’ that type of thing. They're hands-off. And the teachers take

care of everything.

Participant 7 found it significant to involve and train parents since we are in this together.

He claimed,

Definitely, no doubt. I mean, this process is no longer for teachers. The parents should be

more involved, because as we see, if the parents are not prepared, they're not going to

work the way we are expecting. So, I think we have not only to reach out our kids, but to

reach out to our family in a better way.

Remote Learning Development

Learning is evolving every day. Two participants clearly stated that it may take several

years to really evaluate the impact of remote learning. Participant 7 wondered,

If remote learning shows at the end of this virtual learning that it was another good tool to

implement in the learning process for all students, then we as educators can use it to give

a good image to schools and its mission.

Likewise, participant 9 stated, “That will be a matter of fact, has [inaudible 00:11:32]

evolves within the next one, two or three years, maybe more, maybe 10, 20 years on a short or

long-term project.” too.

Persistence and Positive Attitudes on Demand

There was not choice to transition to remote learning in March 2019. Four interviewees
realized the need of practitioners to be more persistent and embrace a positive attitude during the
crisis.

91
 Persistence is necessary to engage in learning remotely. Participant 9 emphasized

energetically that,

as technology evolves, the educational system must go within these stages. It must adapt

to these changes. We, as practitioners, must be prepared to receive these challenges since

they will persist. As educators, we must be ready to deal with them and to apply as fast as

we can with our knowledge. Then, we will aim to achieve the mission of educating our

students.

Participant 11 seconded the emphasis expressed by Participant 9 of the

importance of working with passion, with persistence, and most of all, in a learning how

to learn. Participant 9 and 11narrated that, during Covid-19, the world realized that

teaching is not easy. Covid-19 amplified the need for educators to be positive, passionate,

innovative, persistent, creative, learn how to learn with students and have an overall

growth mindset approach to teaching and learning. “... So if your plan is to teach, use,

let's say, resilience to teach multiplication and you see that the kids are not getting it, then

you have to stop for a minute and re-assess.” (Participant 9 and 11). Participant 6

reflected that practicing multiple times is essential for teachers and students. She said,

“It's challenging to do this. If we continue doing this, I will get better at it and the

students will get better at it.”

In terms of attitude, Participant 3, on the other hand encouraged teachers and students if

one needs to improve the quality of education, one must be willing to change the attitude to

facilitate more differentiated instruction and instant feedback through synchronous and

asynchronous learning. He stated, “ as a teacher you have to be welcoming to it because it's

92
about learning, because if you're teaching you also have to be open to new things.” Participant 9

and 11 agreed to adapt to the new normal. Participant 9 shared,

...the advantages are that we have to get used to the technology. This is a technological

war now, if you don't learn the changes that the works are making in terms of technology

you're going to have to fall behind. That's the reality.

Likewise, Participant 11 added,

We've been for more than ten months thriving to educate students remotely after the

school closure in March 2020. I think that the pros is also, I think we just need to be very,

we need to be open-minded. For me, I have to be... I'm still struggling, but it is way better

than it was in March when we were just thrown into this, when it was all new. I mean, I

remember, my God, that month was very, very challenging, very difficult. I just didn't

know how to do anything.

Re-imaging the School Mission

Despite technology continuing to evolve at a rapid rate in an interconnected world, these

components to reshape the school mission are proposed by the ten participants. They are equity

and access, reimagining pedagogy, embracing persistence and adaptability, and supporting an

inclusive collaborative culture.

Equity Access and High-Quality Tools

Eighth participants agreed that exposing students to remote learning involving

high-quality tools is a priority. Participant 1 and Participant 7 agreed that educational

93
practitioners must align classroom tools with trade tools to transform students’ learning

experiences and embrace an interdisciplinary collaborative culture.

Re-Imagine Pedagogy

There is an urgency to re-image pedagogy as more technology tools are emerging.

Participant 10 stated the need of integrations for differentiation and alternative schooling. He

added, “it is the easier way to meet everyone at their own pace, at their own level. So I think it

should be implemented. I really, really do.”

Persistence and Adaptability

Participant 9 and Participant 11 agreed that school culture embraces persistence and

adaptability. Participant 9 stated, “It must adapt to these changes. We must be prepared to receive

these challenges, [inaudible 00:12:11] these challenges will be there, they will persist.”

Participant 11 said,

“So it's like we have to tailor the instruction and even the technology that we use so that

we can meet their needs because at the bottom line we are going to do it. We are going to

really get to the heart of our students, regardless, whether we do blended or we do

virtual.”

Multidisciplinary collaborative and inclusive culture with teacher and student optimism

can be very significant. Participant 3 said that personnel must be optimistic and open for change.

Participant 9 stated that challenges still exist integrating technology since it evolves every day.

Participant 6 said that teaching planning to be successful must be constructed under a culturally

collaboratively interdisciplinary team (i.e., bilingual) with a positive attitude and optimism.

94
Participant 6 claimed that among school staff “bilingual teachers, we need to come up together

and say, "This worked, this didn't work let us prepare for the future."

The purpose of questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 is to explore and discover participants’

understanding and connection of computer science (CS), equitable access, social media,

technology-based curriculum, and technology-based differentiation. The next section covers

participants’ awareness of core concepts and practices around technology integration in the

classroom and beyond.

Understanding Core Concepts around Technology Integration

Question 5: Given the fact that during COVID-19 pandemic you integrated technology

through remote learning, how would you define Computer Science (CS) with Latinx students?”

The definition of Computer Science (CS) can be very challenging even though you may

have had previous knowledge or advance degree in the field (Fig. 5). Some of the buzz words

participants used to define CS term were: CS has “different levels and it is more than exposing

students to IT”, CS is “so broad,” while another one said, it is a “visible behavior that an

individual demonstrates...” said participants 1, 8, and 4. For the purpose of the analysis, the

researcher considered two groups among participants. Group A (i.e., with advanced knowledge

or professional development in CS), was formed by six participants who defined CS. In Group B

(i.e., with some or minimum experience), two participants could not define it. Interestingly, five

interviewees were not able to define the concept of CS even after some experience during

COVID-19 and their entire career.

95
Figure 5

Meaning of Computer Science (Question 5)

Yes/Not Participants (i.e., Advanced Participants (i.e., Some
Experience) Experience in CS)
Group A (i.e., Participant Group B (i.e., Participant
1,2,3,4,8, 10) 5,6,7,9,11)
Yes 4 (Participant 1,2,4,8) None (i.e., instead:
importance, frustrations,
Not 2 (Participant 3,10) 5 (Participant 5,6,7,9,11)

Computer Science Creates and Designs

Participant 1, very energetically, repeatedly said in the interview, “in my humble opinion”

several times. Like the other three interviewees, he earned a degree in computer science (CS) and

taught math for more than 20 years. He agreed that (CS) is more about becoming a creator than

consumer of technology. Participant 1 stated that CS has “different levels,” and it is more than

exposing students to informational technology (IT). One aspect is creating and programing a

software or platform. It is the process behind the screen, the design. CS Should not be confused

with being exposed to consuming Informational Technology (IT). It is important for students to

be more creator than consumer by developing CS skills as they create and demonstrate their

knowledge using technology to their audience. Looking back to when he started teaching he said,

I remember, I used to have my kids do PowerPoint demos. So, they had a creative part on

how to express what they were learning. That they would take up whatever, whatever

operation. And create a set of slides to present that to somebody else. You're talking about

maybe 20 years ago. We tend to move away from these things, we tend to move away,

and I don't know. (Participant 1)

Participant 8, although he is relatively new in the profession (5 years) with an advanced

degree and experience, likewise expressed that CS is a “big concept” to be assimilated by ELLs.

96
The core concept is to design software behind the screen for its application anchored in the

inquiry-based designed model as well as to conduct peer reflection in the practices for maximum

comprehension. Participant 8 stated, “...it's what is behind your screen, the literal design, the

software and the applications that go in to make it work.” Participant 2, with a degree in

Engineering, agreed with Participant 1 and Participant 8 for the most part, and challenges

practitioners to “learn by inquiry, design and application of knowledge as a result of an

investigation making thing works through a software.”

Active Learning and Observable Behavior

CS is all about active learning. Participant 4 defined CS as an act of visible behavior. CS

can be better understood by the visible behavior that an individual can demonstrate for problem

solving at school, career, and life., for example, at the schools when students are doing a writing

task that need to be improved. They tend to work at it by repeatedly revising the first draft, the

second draft, and editing when necessary. In math, they writing an algorithm that explains the

procedure of doing something. You do not need to become an engineer or scientist, but at least to

get the skills associated with CS. It is important to note how language barrier and malfunction of

technology tools can be very devastating in achieving excellence for ELLs. It is worth noting that

Participant 3 and Participant 10 did not provide a clear definition of CS as Participant 1, 2, 4, and

8 did.

Challenging Concept

Participant 3, with professional development for more than two years in CS, focused on

aspects of responsible remote teaching, purposely planning for technology integration,

engagement, but the definition. Similarly, Participant 10, with more than 23 years of experience

97
with Mass Media, was unable to define CS, “what that means, so I cannot give you a clear

answer because I don't understand what that means.”

Defining CS was very inconsistent and sometimes out of context for group B (i.e., those

with minimum CS experience; Participants: 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11). For example, Participants 6, 9,

and 11 argued that CS is relevant, positive, and requires PD for continued success moving

forward, but they did not define the term.

Participant 5 related a definition of CS as students being exposed to technology tools

nowadays, he argued, “Latinx students are exposed as the other students that we have. They're

exposed to technology constantly, or the using of cell phones, iPads, at the home. “

Participant 6, likewise, said that unfortunately she could not answer that question, I

noticed she became stressed and anxious, when she explained:

“That one, I can't really answer. I'm not too familiar with that. I’m sorry.” Then, I asked

her if she could make a professional guess, and she said: “I would say just because it's

science and using the computers' technology, I definitely think that's the way to go. You

can see the demonstrations, you can do so many things, videos, do discussions. Definitely

a positive. I can't see a negative in doing that.”

Participant 7, instead of giving the definition of CS, expressed frustration for the lack of

parental support in doing the task, and a dependency culture that exists among ELLs. He said,

“experiences were not positive, it requires self-discipline, and attitude for both students and

parents. There is a culture of dependency.” No definition was provided either.

Lastly, instead of providing a definition of CS, Participant 9 and 11 agreed that it is

urgently needed and should be a core subject in the curriculum just like math and ELA.

Participant 9, who was very energetic with a strong advocacy tone at the interview, found that it

98
is beneficial that ELL students during the pandemic were getting exposed to technology

language and its application of technology. However, the definition is lacking.

Issue of Equality and Financial Status

Question 6 addressed teachers’ perception of equitable access. Several participants

(Participant 1, 8, and 9) perceived the term “equitable access” as a big, generalized word, that

day-to-day presents many challenges, and requires an extensive amount of planning. Seven out

of eleven felt that “equitable access” is more aligned to equality and financial status.

Surprisingly, four participants (Participant 2, 8, 10, and 9) shared strong beliefs and felt that

“equitable access” leveraged the playing field for all students, regardless of their Social

Economy Status (SES).

Participant 1, with a computer science background and seasoned educator, and six more

participants remarked about the importance of providing students with equal digital tools,

especially in underserved community. “Equity access “ is a general term. Participant 1

wholeheartedly explained that the educational population in general should have equal digital

tools (i.e., software, hardware) and high-quality universal Wi-Fi Web band Internet sponsored by

the U.S. educational system or local agencies. Different level of bandwidths and different digital

devices (i.e., tablets, laptops, iPhone) continue to be a disadvantage among U.S. public school

children in underserved neighborhoods with low SES, and frankly, this is not fair. “The level of

engagement will be different for Johnny because he has a laptop versus Maria, that cannot afford

a laptop.” Participant 1 also revealed that,

99
 “The word equitable means that, again, Johnny could have a laptop, and Maria could

have a phone, both devices have the same speed. But the level of engagement will be

different for Johnny because he has a laptop versus Maria, that cannot afford a laptop.

Equal over equity. And equitable means that we both have devices, and your device is

better than mine. So, I didn't get the same interaction with the teacher. So again, we're

going to go from the education standpoint, everybody should be equal and not

equitable.”

Likewise, Participant 4 added that equal resources for all are essential. For Participant 4,

he envisioned everyone having the same resources equally. He reflected that technology must be

available for all and working perfectly in all district schools, otherwise, is not equity. He also

claimed, “Equitable classes, like I said, basically where everybody's given the same type of

resources.” The expectation is that “...They are given the same resources, where there's no

shortcomings in terms of providing the type of help that the student needs. We have to make sure

that ... the technology may be working well, the computers are up to date, otherwise, when it's

not, that's not equitable.” In order to provide the perfect equity scenario in a sense, “We have to

make sure that we have the right equipment available. And keep in mind also that, “the

equipment that is available for one is available for all.” Participant 11, being an ELL student,

herself, felt that as ELL student and her previous experiences as educator not only has the

instruction of ELLs been different, but also the resources as well have been different from the

non-ELLs counterpart for decades. “I always felt that the ELLs didn't have, there was no equity

between the two subgroups.”

100
Equity, Finance, and the Digital Divide

Participant 3, with some professional development in CS, very empathetically remarked

that equity in society does not exist and it is associated with the family financial status. He

stated, “Underserved communities are directly affected to educational attainment due to financial

hardship and language barriers that put them at disadvantage versus affluent counterpart. During

Covid-19, many students could not do their homework for three weeks due to the lack of the

device and the Wi-Fi broadband Internet.” He further explained,

“...the majority, if not all of the kids, are unprivileged students, they are minority kids.

They are children of immigrants and a good portion of them are immigrants who do not

speak the language, now that's already putting them at a disadvantage.” ... a lot of those

students do not have access to computers, a good half of our students had to borrow a

device from the school, that's equitable access already. Sometimes, students may have the

device, but the Internet is weak or nonexistent. The lack of Internet connectivity still

exists.”

Participant 7 added, “Everyone should have a high qualitative device and access to educational

technology. “However, there is some concern getting Wi-Fi broadband in the community even

though “every student in my district has a laptop. It's not that you have one and the other student

doesn't have one. The only thing that they have to worry about is their Wi-Fi.”

Participant 5, called to action to invest more in technology, as students are the most

important assets. He stated, “the education system needs to make more improvement and

101
investment integrating technology to empower educators, students, and community at large.

Participant 5 emphasized that our “main assets always going to be our students. He stated,

There is urgency to improve more our technology resources for the good of them. It is

not a surprise that Universities were working with this system lon time ago. And they

were kind of prepared. I mean, better prepared than us, than the regular school system.”

It is urgent to invest or to get more resources on technology.

Participant 6 thought of equity as money. She added, “although this is an unfamiliar term,

everyone should be educated regardless SES, including new arrivals.”

Participant 5, again added, “Unfortunately, this is the new way, even though this pandemic is

gone, we still going to need better way to connect on technology. From the student, the

classroom, the family, no doubt we need to improve more our technology side.”

Differentiation of Instruction

The previous seven participants revealed that “equity access” in education required

practitioners to facilitate learners with optimal, equal resources to enable technology integration.

In the other hand, Participants 2, 8, 10, and 9 jointly agreed that “equity access” meant to provide

the same education for all students taking away any roadblocks regardless SES considering their

educational levels and background.

Both, Participant 2 and 8 explained, the need to provide the same education considering

learners’ cultural background and learning level needs. Participant 8 explained that promoting

equitable access,

102
 “...demands a strategic planning where students are met where they are, offering the

same education based on their personal levels and interest in an atmosphere where they

are able to see mistakes a part of their learning process. A safety learning atmosphere

matter. Participant 8 shared, “... equitable access to the education, we start off with the

supportive environment, making sure they're comfortable to make mistakes so that they're

able to learn.”

Equity and access facilitate differentiation of instruction. Participant 10, with a master's

degree in mass media, explained,

...It leverages the playing field for public or private community to acquire the same

education for all regardless SES keeping differentiated instruction at the center. Whether

you're poor, whether you're rich or middle class, we all in the same playing field because

we are all receiving instructions and getting instructions through the same classroom,

regardless. Regarding ...access, all my students, they receive the same instructions. It's

the same lesson but differentiated.” So, they all are getting the same opportunity. It might

look different for different levels of students, but everyone is equitable, everybody has

access to it. I might ask one student to read something, I might ask the other one to read

it, I might ask the other one to draw it, but everything comes from technology.

While there is a clear expectation from previous participant about instructional planning,

there are still challenges ahead since technology is evolving.

103
Challenges Remain

The “equity and access” agenda is something that goes beyond school wall and requires

collective work. Participant 9, admitted that equity access,

“...presents challenges, it requires collective effort, and it is a work in process as the

planning stages evolves every day for years to come. It is day-to- day challenge to

support knowledge transfer in school, beyond the school, college, and life. We must work

on because at the end, equity must be one of the goals that we must achieve in order to

educate our students and provide them the necessary knowledge, especially as they

transition from the school to after-school life and getting into college and for them going

forward in life. Equitable access is a day-to-day challenge that we educators face at all

aspects at all levels. Let us make sure that our kids not only receive the necessary means,

but that they're receiving all the means at the same time and at all levels.”

Technology-based Curriculum Planning

Question 7: What is your perception of technology-based curriculum planning?”

Curriculum planning is very essential to develop responsible teaching. After March

2020, and during COVID-19, technology-based curriculum planning has been impacted by a

plethora of technology tools available to educators’ and students’ fingertips. Some interviewees

identified multiple benefits for planning. While, some others, in light of achieved experiences

felt the need to build back better while offering some recommendations.

104
Benefits

Four out of eleven participants agreed that technology-based planning is optimal and

helped them to share, store, and keep track of data. Participant 2 explained that “Technology

based curriculum planning is going to lead to a higher quality of education. There is an ease of

gathering, story and sharing information when planning using technology. It is also much easier

to keep track of.”

Networking and Sharing

Participant 4 said that with abundant resources at the fingertip, tech-based curriculum

planning is a great tool for sharing information with your colleagues through equitable network.

“The terms equity goes beyond student’s scope, but teachers should have the adequate

digital tools to create student-centered and personalized learning. Especially if you are

able to share information with your colleagues. You're putting things together and you are

able to share information with your colleagues. In terms of planning a lesson, you could

have a site or links that you embed videos on your planning.” (Participant 4).

However, to be effective, digital tools for teachers need to be equitable also. Some

teachers I know are basically working with obsolete digital tools when they should be using high

quality resources. The equity applies also in terms of providing things for the teachers as well,

not just the students.”

105
Networking and Evidence-based for Learning

Participant 8 explained that a tech-based curriculum is the optimal way to collaborate

among practitioners when planning lessons through active network to gather and store student’s

evidence of learning due to easy retrieval and tracking systems. Participant 8 stated,

“… I don't know, Google Drive or Microsoft One Point. And it's easier to work with

other teachers to collaborate on curriculum. So I feel that because it's so easy to keep

track of it, I believe technology-based curriculum planning is a pretty positive thing that's

coming out of the moment.”

Motivation and Ownership

Participant 3, a teacher with CS experience, remarked that even though technology

planning is time consuming, technology has proven to be an essential tool for motivation and

engagement. He claimed,

“Today's children who have their attention deficit so high, they lose attention so fast. We

need to integrate it more and that way they can own their learning even more.” In today's

learning we talk about how we want our students to learn on their own, to be

independent, to be owner of their learning.” I realized every time I would give them a

computer, they took more ownership of their learning than they did when I was talking in

the classroom and giving out the paperwork, you understand?”

106
Building Back Better

Surprisingly, Participant 5 and 6 acknowledged that the term “tech-based planning” was

not commonly used and even ignored the existence of any technology blueprint.

Participant 5 described, technology-based curriculum planning as definitely needing to be

improved and more planning is need. Participant 5 claimed,

“Technology in the curriculum was barely mentioned. It was only used for Internet

search.” We never, ever... I mean, I haven't seen any type of curriculum that we handled

the real use of technology, like the way we're using it right now.”

Participant 6 was hopeful to see more technology integration among colleagues and

departments after their COVID-19 experiences. He explained,

“Not only is the technology department in school going to have something to do on their

own. Bilingual teachers are not included in that but now I think they're going to have to

take a step back and technology with bilingual teachers, get together and say, this might

have worked for the regular kids, but this didn't work for the bilingual kids.”

Planning is Challenging

Participant 3 claimed that he would use more technology at the school but did not have

time to plan accordingly. It “...is time consuming and must be purposely planned. I don't have a

lesson plan, I don't have all my aims, I don't have this, I don't have that. So, it's not something I

could do every day.”

107
Essential Technology Skills

Participant 9 said that technology-based curriculum planning is challenging and different

from face-to-face learning. He explained that planning is time- consuming and demands

educator to obtain the essential skills and competencies. Participant 9 claimed,

“…until we don't get the necessary skills and enough technological skills applied to

curriculum planning. This will be a challenge for us, this will precede us a challenge for

educators. These will continue to be a time-consuming aspect for us to do this until we

achieve the necessary technological means and skills to better translation to a more

technological-setting curriculum plan.”

Teacher Recommendation

Innovative Planner, Accessibility, and Interdisciplinary

Responsible educators constantly revise and improve the curriculum. Participant 1, an

experienced and CS-certified teacher claimed that.

technology-based curriculum planning must be done by teachers who deal with everyday

practices rather than panelist of non-educational lobbyist publishing company.

“Curriculum should not be replaced every five years, or because a change in

administration. Instead, must be revised and innovated using the technology at our

disposal.”

Participant 1 then enthusiastically continued to explain,

108
 “Instead of working on making the system better that's what technology is good at. We

take something, and it's not that we scrap it, it's not that we think about the PC, we didn't

scrap the PC and came up with a new system.”

Participant 1 provided the following example,

“...math hasn't changed, from the level of kindergarten to the sixth grade is the same

math. It's not like science that is new discoveries or history, it's math. We keep building

into that system and making it better and better and better. The education system doesn't

work like that, not only remotely, but also for in person.”

Accessibility in All Subject Areas

Participant 10 felt that tech-based planning should be accessible and integrated in all

subject areas since technology is ubiquitously. “... we are living in a technological society.

Whether it is your TV, your radio, all the way to your watch, it is based on technology.”

“So everyone should have access to technology...”

Participants reflected about technology as a core subject area. Participant 11 felt that

tech-based curriculum planning is not negotiable, and it should be a core subject just as

mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA). Participant 11 reflected,

“I mean, educators, students, and the low income middle class, everyone needs to start

seeing computer science as equally important as ELA, math. It should be. Think of it as a

triad, ELA, math, computer science, especially the way that things are going and because

109
 of what we went through, what we're still going through and what we will continue to go

through.”

Social Media and Education

“Question 8: What is your perception of social media (i.e., YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter)?

Most of the participants were skeptical about using social media with students. More

than half of the participants referenced the use social media but planning and supervision must

be exercised upon integration. Surprisingly, two participants did not recommend social media for

instruction, while the majority of participants made important remarks to keep into account when

planning effective lessons.

Part of the Lesson Plan, But...

Both participant 3 and 10 used social media for instruction but emphasized that

precautions must be taken. Participant 10, like several other interviewees, succinctly expressed

that even though he has used YouTube videos for differentiation in his lesson plan, he does not

think that other social media can be used in a positive way. If social media is used, then it needs

to be supervised and balanced how to use it. It could be “a double edge sword.” He added,

I do think that the media, whether it's Facebook, Instagram, YouTube could be used in a

positive way. Of course. I personally use YouTube. I incorporate videos from YouTube to

enhance my lessons. If I'm teaching the kids a verb, I want to look at videos that relate to

them to make it easier for them. (Participant 10).

110
 Participant 3, like Participant 10, found that social media are enormously powerful open

sources for planning lessons. He stated,

YouTube, they have videos for any lesson, anything the kids want to learn, anything they

don't understand “I am not familiar with Twitter and Facebook, but I will welcome them

for discussion and debate.” “...They’re very dangerous in terms of what you do with

them, but if used properly, they can be very useful.

Participant 6, said to be a proponent of using You Tube videos in her lessons, and found

that the bilingual students benefit from the images. Participant 6 also added that she has not used

Twitter or Facebook for instruction yet since she has never tried. However, the downside is

access to Spanish resources is limited. English resources are more frequently found. She finally

said, not only can you learn anything, but bilingual student could see the images.

Easy Access Network

Participant 4 felt that social media can be a great instructional tool for students and

teachers to communicate but requires strategic planning and training to use it effectively.

Otherwise, it can be detrimental to the learning process. From teachers enhancing the lessons

with videos to students having a discussion and debates free platforms such as Twitter or Flipgrid

can enhance class participation for all learners. An engaged and motivated teacher or principal

using social media can make a big difference in successful implementation of social media. If

promoting discussion or debate, Participant 4 said,

Twitter, you could be asking a question in the classroom, and then every student has a

Twitter account, they could have them answered right then and there, instead of you

111
 having to purchase the different software. Again, this thing's all free, again, providing

equal opportunities for everyone.

However, the question is, Participant 4 asked,

... who is using it? Is everybody being trained properly to have their students use it? If

you have a dynamic teacher in one school or dynamic principal in one school where

they're pushing something like that, then those students are doing work well.

Like Participant 4, Participant 5, believed that social media is at our disposal to enhance

communication between school and home. He added,

Facebook, for example, serves to connect the schools with parents effectively better than

cell phone calls. And they respond better, unbelievable, they respond better on that type

of communication, on that type of platform, than direct contact via cell phone, whatever.

Likewise, Participants 8 and 2 agreed with Participants 4 and 5. Participant 8, who

attended several STEM conferences, claimed,

“Oh man. So social media is good when you're using it to network with other people,

share your ideas, debate topics. There's a lot of information on these social media sites,

but then the negative aspect is that everyone has access to it and it's not filtered for age

levels.”

Participant 2, added, “Social media is a good way to network with others and get

information out there.” However, both agreed that even though there are rich and abundant

112
resources of any topic to share and debate with your audience, everyone's accessibility can be

very detrimental.”

Inappropriate Language

By contrast, Participant 7 explained that before the Internet, students were less bullied

than now. He compassionately remarked,

“In my humble opinion, I think it's another way for students to get bullied, unfortunately.

All right? That's another way for all the students to bully all the students, 24/7. Before

technology and before social media, kids went through school they were bullied, if you

could say that from nine to three. After three, they went home and there was no more

bullying. But once they have social media, it's still going on. Such as, what do you call

that? Facebook or all those social medias.”

Participant 9, on the other hand, argued that social media is part of our daily lives and

educators play an essential role to set purpose and right behavior online. He added, inappropriate

behavior is very detrimental and fails the purpose for which social media was created.

Inappropriate behavior would impact people’s vulnerability and their values. Participant 9

explained,

“Adults, some immature people that they use social media for the same purpose and kids,

young people, they observe what we adults do. And if we don't set the right example of

doing the right use of this technological mean of communication, then that will create an

ethical problems that will go against the values of human nature.”

113
 Similarly, Participant 11 acknowledged that social media like anything else is good and

bad, however there might be many things you can learn. As a mom of teenagers, special attention

to developmental ages must be observed upon use. For instance, she said, “I struggled with that

because I felt that my kids were being influenced too much by social media. So, mixed feelings,

because I think sometimes, especially when they start young, they just don't know any better.

Perception with Technology-based Differentiation with ELLs

Question 9: What is the perception of technology-based differentiation with ELLs?

Whether or not educators use technology, differentiation levels the playing field for

equity and access. More than half of the participants expressed satisfaction with integrating

differentiation-based technology for all. Some made remarks about expectation for

the instructional specialist’ job duties, the need to reimage services for ELLs, and rethinking

planning.

Satisfaction

Participant 4 and 7 agreed that technology-based differentiation with ELLs is the right

way to go as it leverages the playing field to support students during disrupted instruction. Both

of them recognize the plethora of resources at teacher’s disposal. Participant 4 claimed that it is

very important to have the same high-quality resources while students work at their own pace.

Participant 7 added that one example could be the use of translation services. He said, “they don't

have any excuses to say, "Oh, I don't have a dictionary in my house.” Differentiation and

assessment work hand in hand.

114
 Participant 8 and 2 agreed that assessment-centered practices drive equity and access and

facilitates data driven decision making (DDDM) to inform instruction. Participant 8 explained,

that with student’s home language at the center, and the plethora of personalized software

available, on-line students can be met where they are. Personalized software can identify needs

and level and generate automated intervention tasks for the next steps.

Both Participant 8 and 2 shared, “Technology-based differentiation learning for ELLs is

possible because of the programs readily available with individualized instruction that meets kids

at their different levels.”

Participant 2 also added that teaching to a student’s individual needs based on their

strengths and weaknesses as a learner is key. Participant 8 finally said that, “Differentiation

should always be based on the assessment results of the current language acquisition level. This

allows for students to receive an education that is equitable and accessible.”

Participant 11 felt that tech-based differentiation has always been part of the teaching

learning more now than ever before. Differentiation is a part of responsible teaching with or

without technology to meet student’ needs and wants. He stated, “Some, 50 years ago, a long

time ago, more moderate amount. And then a few years ago, a little bit less than now.”

Participant 10 energetically claimed that he is very optimistic to integrate tech-based

curriculum ubiquitously, in ELLs, 100 % in all tasks from doing a PowerPoint to research. This

is a non-negotiable action, and it would be a pleasure to be also part of the curriculum planning

committee. “Oh no, everything should be done from technology, whether in the building or

outside of the building,” her recommended.

115
 In closing, Participant 9, inspired by a person that taught him to become a teacher, a

parent, and an educator claimed, “She told me "It's not about what you teach, it is who you

teach." The next section describes the immediate action to challenge the status quo.

Challenges

Rethinking Specialist’s Role, Services, and Planning

Participant 1 claimed that differentiation-based curriculum must be for all. However, he is

very skeptical about the roles of the specialists during collaborative team teaching. From the

general lesson plan, service providers must assess strength and weaknesses purposely planned to

be more focus and effective for DDDM. It does not happen often. According to Participant 1,

“...they're just there, it's not that they are providing the service that these kids need, they are the

specialists.”

Participant 3, on the other hand, found very hopeful and supportive of re-imagining

services. There must be more support from external stakeholders (i.e., policymaker) to leverage

current level of ELLs tech-based needs just as student with disability (SWD) are supported

through their IEP. Participant 3 claimed, “...we've differentiated lessons to accommodate these

IEP students, but I've not seen it done for our ELL students.”

All in all, Participant 6 explained that it is understood that everyone learns differently,

and remotely is even more difficult. But once the pandemic has gone, there would be evidence to

use DDDM to plan for strategically technology-based lesson plans among interdisciplinary teams

based on previous live experiences. Participant 6 suggested “... bilingual teachers get together,

we're going to have to say, Well, this child learned best this way when I did this.”

116
 Connecting the Elements of Technology-based Benefits and Challenges

Question 10: How would you envision a connection among equity, technology-based curriculum

planning, social media, and technology-based differentiation learning in ELLs?

Technology-based tools have many benefits, but it also has many challenges. The idea of

integrating equity, technology-based curriculum planning, social media, and technology-based

differentiation with ELLs was widely accepted by the majority of the participants, but with some

concerns for implementation and sustainability. Some of the caveats by the interviewees were

the reassurance of an equitable infrastructure and resources accessible to internal-external

constituencies, and a call to action.

Healthy Infrastructure and Equity

First and foremost, equity and access need to be at the center of the hub. Participant 2

explained that a well-rounded education starts with equity. Equity begins with all students having

access to the materials needed to learn, in this case technology being readily available with a

reliable Internet connection. Incorporating real life current events and applications widens the

students’ potential to access valuable information for learning. When teaching remotely, it is

important to consider that students have a larger range of data easily available to them.

Participant 2 suggested, “The connection of these things will allow students to receive a

well-rounded high-quality education with the use of resources found through technology-based

planning.” Participant 8 agreed with Participant 2 and added that we are living in a digital

economy and that equitable access in the infrastructure (i.e., software, hardware) is paramount

for achieving success. She shared, “... using the resources, we find through the technology-based

117
planning with one another and the constant communication between teachers and other staff

members, and administration can definitely help us in the long run.” She concluded, that for

ELLs, it is important to plan synchronous instructions over asynchronous as well as to support

them to select information from abundant resources.

On the other hand, Participant 4 claimed that the interdisciplinary approach demonstrated

a responsible teaching modality. He added that the integrative approach could only work if all

students had access to optimal connectivity, learning resources, and digital devices. He insisted

that the predictive approach requires consistent ongoing assessment and evaluation as well as

ongoing support from technology-based experts. He said, “If everyone had access to all these

things equally, then we'll be living in a perfect world, but we know we're not living in a perfect

world.” In addition, participant 10 added,

“Using all those four platforms, I think, would make it easier for the students and for us

as teachers to reach more people.” He concluded, “while the platforms address multiple

intelligences, there is a need for more teacher’s input, they are the one in the front line,

and hardly ever are consulted. “

Participant 3 claimed that the future for ELLs is very challenging while the digital divide

and the lack of expertise among educators exist. However, with a strong culture of collaboration,

a strong infrastructure, a strategic planning, an ongoing guidance, and accommodation of

content, the ELLs will adapt to the new normal of the digital learning atmosphere. It is

undertaking how student’s self-discipline really matters for accountability and achievement.

118
 “But they're so young, they're probably not going to research it, so we as educators need

to provide them with the resources.” Sometimes I believe just like special education

students can have special ed teachers, so I believe that ELL students should have ELL

teachers also in the classroom.” (Participant 3).

A Call to Action

In addition to the above educators’ teaching experiences, five out of eleven optimistic

participants called technology-based practitioners and constituencies to action.

Participant 7, like several other participants were very optimistic, as the combination of

the four platforms will drive competent individuals in the future with a sense of agency and

empowerment. He urged that this integrated-based curriculum-based design must be mandatory

locally and national for all, especially in ELL population. He claimed, “every district should

make them mandatory in the learning process for every student in our nation, especially, ELL

students.”

On the other hand, Participant 6 said that the four elements overlap and must work

together for instructional planning, instructional delivering, and instructional assessment. She

suggested, “I think they all come together at the end and it's probably going to be something we

have to touch upon when we plan.” Participant 11, supported participant 6 and added, “We need

to be aware of all four components, pros and cons, and just have conversations among us, so that

we can provide equal, so we can provide equality for all four components.” Likewise, Participant

5, very passionately pushed for more technology integration, and said, thinking forward, not

119
backward, “We need to keep going and keep moving on, and improving, improving on

technology, on education.” to which, participant 9 agreed and said,

“Each one of these aspects must be patent and must be addressed at the same time, at the

same level and they must be given the same treatment if we want to achieve the result on a short

or long-term.”

In conclusion, Participant 1, demonstrated much optimism of this interdisciplinary vision,

and regardless the challenges, he encouraged four steps for successful implementation. He

stated:

“First, one evaluates and accesses quick pro quo corporation gains vs. student-centered

practices. Second, the technology is already here, but it is needed more collaborative

effort among external stakeholders regarding legacy and funding for implementation,

support, and stating which practice worked and which one did not work. Fourth,

practitioners need to have high expectation for students, students’ self-regulation is

needed more than ever, and SEL well-being must be accessed through student’s survey

for empowerment and independency. “... talking to students directly I think it's really

something is a missing piece of the element that we tend to rely more on the parents

saying, others than looking at them directly, because they are the one that really know

why there is not achievement going on.”

Summary of Findings

Through the examination of data, the study’s outcomes revealed that teachers in urban

settings often do not feel they were adequately prepared to integrate technology with ELLs

120
during COVID-19 pandemic. In this chapter, I provided an introduction regarding research

questions addressed by this qualitative study and description of how research results are

presented. Next, I developed a detailed description of participants’ demographic and informed

experiences around CS regarding technology integration. Following participants’ descriptions, I

presented major themes of research findings. Searching through the data, challenging

interpretations, comparing competing themes and explanations, creating new grouping or clusters

of data, looking for new patterns, and searching for negative instances of patterns resulted in

several categories of data, or themes, worthy of description. The following overarching themes

emerged from participants’ interviews and data analysis:

Teachers integrated technology to support ELA and Math curriculum regardless

roadblocks. Right before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, most participants integrated

technology in their instruction to support coding, ELA, and math curricula. However, several

others shared that at the beginning of March that there were many disruptions due to many

challenges with technology-based differentiation, accessibility to devices, and weak Wi-Fi

connectivity.

Teachers developed a positive attitudes and creativity from achieved Covid experiences

regardless challenges presented. Most of the participants shared frustration for the roadblocks

that prevented them from launching a remote program effectively due to the lack of

unpreparedness coming from teachers and students to navigate and effectively use the digital

tools to deliver, share, and access content knowledge. However, regardless of the roadblocks

(e.g., distraction, digital divide, engagement, persistent), many of them felt the need to embrace

creativity, collaboration among colleagues, routines, and a positive attitude to change the status

quo.

121
 Advancing the school mission requires the integration of equitable access and

re-imagination of pedagogy at the center. Participants discussed that although there were many

challenges (e.g., poor infract structure, inequity of high quality of digital tools, discipline),

remote learning represents the present and future. Therefore, they succinctly agreed to advance

equity and access in education, four core elements must be considered in re-imaging and

re-building the school mission. They are: a) Teachers and students must have at their disposal

equitable access of high-quality infrastructure and resources competitive to the one used in the

business or military; b) There is an urgency to re-imagine digital pedagogy; c) Teachers and

students should embrace creativity, persistence, adaptation, and a positive attitude toward

changes; and, d) Practitioners to be effective must be nurtured under an inclusive

interdisciplinary collaborative network culture that see each other as an asset.

Participants' perception of Computer Science (CS), Equitable Access, and Social Media in the

field of Educational Technology seemed incredibly challenging even though one may have

earned a CS education. The eleven participants were organized in two groups. One group with

advanced CS experience, and the second group with limited or no experience in CS.

Experienced versus non-experiences participants differed in meaning and scope the

definition of CS. Group A, four out of 11described CS as a very broad concept with different

meanings and levels. It is more than exposing students to IT. It is what is behind the screen,

creating a software or platform other than being consumer of technology. CS is a visible behavior

that an individual can demonstrate in problem solving for school and life. CS requires purposely

planning, an inquiry-based approach, and reflection for engagement. By contrast, five out of 11

in Group B provided general description which was inconsistent in breath. Some participants

122
said that they cannot really answer as they were not too familiar with that and that their

experience had not been positive. Two out of eleven did not respond.

Equitable access as a mean to level the playing field among ELLs. Like CS, this term was

considered a relevant and positive big word that required careful planning. “Equity does not exist

in Society,” one participant with CS background said. Many agreed that equitable access is the

playing field to leverage underserved community. The reality is that students had and continue to

have different equipment and resources available for remote learning, and that is an injustice and

detrimental to our community of learners. Every child living in a low SES (Social Economic

Status) must have equal tools and strong infrastructure with universal Wi-Fi sponsored by

Government or local agency. Many children did not do their homework due to the lack of a

device or reliable Wi-Fi. Some participants voiced that more money is needed for technology

integration, while another participant with CS background said, “Equitable means that we both

children have the device and your device is better than mine.” He also argued that “Everyone

should be equal, not equitable.”

The controversy of social media in instruction and planning. Most participants had used

YouTube videos in their lesson plans. However, without strategic planning and adequate

supervision social media can be detrimental to the learners developmental ages. Data suggested

that three participants’ experienced satisfaction with implementing social media other than

YouTube. Twitter was used as a network for discussion and sharing ideas with great satisfaction,

and Facebook as a means to extend communication between home and school successfully.

Surprisingly, two participants had no ideas or familiarity with how to incorporate Facebook or

Twitter, but one of them welcomed the opportunity to learn more to incorporate debate and class

discussion. One participant who disagreed to use any social media as it may incite to

123
cyber-bullying 24/7 as another claimed educators to model behavior to preserve the integrity and

values of the learners.

Technology-based curriculum planning and the network at the hub. Most of the

participants described it as the hub to responsible teaching in advancing high quality education to

design evidence-based learning. It drives motivation, ownership, focus, and achievement.

Surprisingly, many participants mentioned that at their schools there were no clear expectations

or a blueprint available of how to integrate technology in the curriculum. Many participants

demanded more professional development to learn how to integrate technology through

networking as it allows the data you share to be organized and retrievable for improvement.

Technology-based differentiation must be hand in hand with assessment to level the

playing field. Many participants shared that regardless if educators use technology-based

curriculum or not, technology-based differentiation levels the playing field for equity and access

among the stakeholders with careful planning. Most of them agreed that during the disruption of

instruction, differentiation must be been designed around assessments. E-assessment drives data

driven decision making (DDDM) that allows educators to inform instruction and meet students

where they are through personalized software. Experiences from pandemic and along with

interdisciplinary teams can help and support futures intervention for differentiations, one

participant said.

The four integrated platforms can empower student to get a well round education. The

vast majority of participants agreed that the four platforms are the right thing to do to close

disparities among ELLS since the four platforms develop a well-rounded learner that is

empowered and competent. However, a healthy infrastructure and resources must be to up to

date to meet the demand of our internal and external stakeholders. Most of them called to action

124
acknowledging that this interdisciplinary platform with project-based learning should be patented

and mandatory, especially for ELLs. Technology-based curriculum and differentiated planning

are part of responsible teaching, but only can be sustainable if teachers and students are equipped

with high levels of quality tools, ongoing assessment, evaluation, and support from the experts.

The next chapter provides a conclusion to this research study and highlights needs and

suggestions obtained from the data collection and analysis of the participant interviews. I will

interpret research findings and explore implications for practice and recommendations for future

research.

125
 Chapter 5: Discussions and Conclusion

Introduction

The Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has rewritten the educational syllabus for the

2020-2021 school year. At a particular urban setting in a U.S. northeastern school district, whose

school population is economically disadvantaged and predominantly Latinx (e.g., 92% Latinx,

2.3% White, 2% Blacks, and 2.1% Asians), teachers are facing formidable challenges, whether

educating students in masked-up, socially distant classrooms or virtual computer screens. At the

Inaugural Address on January 20, 2020), U.S. President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. reported that

American coronavirus deaths surpassed the country’s troop fatalities in World War II, and yet the

worst of the pandemic is still to come. This is in addition to the economic challenges and the

undergoing racial unrest that the educational system has ever confronted in our lifetimes (The

Danielson Group, 2020). What does this crisis mean for a responsible educational practitioner

whose mission is to educate every child regardless of the economic social status (SES) or

disparities to thrive at school, life, and careers? How does the context of blended classroom

performances, practices, climate, and culture of technology integration look like to promote

equity and access for all? The answers to these questions are challenging as technology is still

emerging in a new and fluid context. Danielson’s Framework for Remote Teaching (2020)

suggested improving achievement and engagement among learners, responsible educators’

urgency must deepen their understanding of student's identities and lives amid these crises to

inform instruction and data-driven decision-making processes.

The purpose of this study was to explore teacher’s perceptions of technology integration

in teaching (7-8 grades) Latinx students in the context of the classroom and beyond school walls

in a U.S. northeastern urban school district. The study aimed to discover how this integration

could inform pedagogical practices through equity and access for all before and after the

126
COVID-19 pandemic. Fox and Jones (2018) argued in their executive summary that temporary

and emerging digital technologies have impacted pedagogy and curriculum while practitioners,

students, and policymakers thrive for new and improved proven practices along with a set of

skills and knowledge to meet the needs of an innovative knowledge economy.

A basic qualitative study was conducted. The content analysis technique guided the data

analysis and interpretation of the interview transcripts collected by the researcher. The content

analysis is a systematic approach that allows the researcher to replicate and compress words into

text, into fewer content categories, regulated by explicit rules of coding (Creswell, 2015). The

Framework for Remote Teaching (Danielson, 2020) and the Transcendental Theory (Gardiner,

2016) shaped the study’s focus and theory.

Semi-structured interviews via the Zoom platform were conducted. Purposeful sampling was

conducted and a total of 11 participants was recruited (e.g., three females, seven males). Six

out of eleven participants had over 20 years of experience with varying levels of a Computer

Science (CS) background. The rest of the participants had little, or no experience integrating

technology. The semi-structured interviews consisted of 10 questions designed to explore

perceptions from the participants, and aimed to explore and discover level of knowledge of

technology-based core concepts [Questions 5, 6, 8, and 7]. Observable outcomes, behavior, or

performance from integrating concepts and practices intercept before and after Covid-19 were

ascertained

[Question 1,2,3, and 4], and how participants’ attitude and culture impacted

performance and lead to future planning were queried [Question 7, 9, and 10].

127
 Discussion and Interpretation

Summary

Drawing from the findings of this study in Chapter 4, the researcher found the data

suggested that education practitioners in an urban school district setting with low

socioeconomic status did not feel they were capable to integrate technology with English

Language Learners (ELLs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite participants providing

some evidence-based indicators of their practical experiences (e.g., PowerPoints, Typing,

Phonemic, Scratch Programming) with great enthusiasm throughout the interview, seven out of

eleven participants (63%) had unclear perceptions and lacked coherence describing core

concepts regarding technology integration. By contrast, only four out of eleven participants

(37%) with CS backgrounds were able to describe technological-based core concepts. Secondly,

most of the participants’ tasks described (e.g., tech for improving pronunciation, math search

topics) were considered low technology integration levels as per best practices Substitution

Augmentation Modification and Redefinition (SAMR). Finally, 99% of the participants agreed

and acknowledged that the vision for an integrated platform (e.g., equity-tech-based planning,

social media, and tech-based differentiation) was significant to build a well-rounded education.

However, specific capacity building and adequate resources were paramount for student

success. Drawing from participants’ perceptions in Chapter 4, the overarching themes from the

study around the central research question are presented (Fig. 6).

128
Figure 6

The Overarching Themes From the Study Around the Central Research Question

Themes

Participants Lack Awareness of Technology-Based Core Concepts

Computer Science

Data from this study showed that participants' perception of computer science (CS),

equitable access, and social media core concepts seemed challenging even though some of them

had a CS educational background. Participants with less experience, seven out of eleven, plus

two from the advanced group described CS very broadly. From the findings, some participants

respectively said, “That I cannot really answer, I am not too familiar with that;” “What that

means, so I cannot give you a clear answer because I don’t understand what that means.”

By contrast, those with a CS background, four out of eleven participants, responded to

the previous concepts with confidence, asserting that CS is an active and collaborative learning

129
experience, reflective practice, and visible behavior where learners demonstrate the learning by

explaining step-by-step how to solve a particular math problem or algorithms. In some cases,

students can design and create codes in Scratch software language. Findings in this study

support the literature review in Chapter 2. Swallow and Olofson (2017) proposed that teachers

enhance professional practices for a high-level understanding of technology integration, they

needed to integrate technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK).

Responsible educators must encourage learners to feel comfortable with ambiguous,

complex, and open problems supported by the principal and practices of CS. It is morally

wrong that educators teaching the vulnerable population are excluding English Language

Learners (ELLs) from the soft skills (e.g., collaboration, life skills) and technical skills (coding,

programming) to compete in a digital economy with amplified current context and needs (e.g.,

disparities) by not managing the concept, application, and interconnection of important

concepts. From the literature review, educators are called upon to promote active learning (e.g.,

Robotics) over passive learning (NETP, 2017).

The current participants came to the educational profession from different backgrounds

(e.g., Engineers, Special Education, TESOL certified). It is morally right to expose educators

lacking content knowledge with the technology standards (ISTE, CSTA), next generation of

science standards (NGSS), and best technology-based practices (e.g., SAMR, TPACK, Retain,

Reuse, Remix, Redesign, and Redistribute [5 R’s]). More than ever, to educate disadvantaged

learners (e.g., ELLs) in online learning environments, responsive educators must begin by

deeply building systems and supports rooted in current needs and context that prioritize and

adjust equitable access, understand students’ identity and assets (CRSE, Family partnerships),

Social

Emotional Learning (SEL, Growth Mindset), and academic development (CRS STEAM)

130
to lead engagement and achievement in the 21st Century ever changing economy.

Equity Access

Like computer science, equity access was a challenging core concept. Four out of eleven

participants explained that equity and access leveled the playing field for all students living in

underserved communities. The findings from the study showed that one participant described

equity access as, “equitable access starts off with the supportive environment, making sure they

are comfortable to make mistakes so that they are able to learn.” From the previous literature,

the International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE, 2019) and Computer Science

Teacher Association (CSTA, 2020) suggested,

Equity refers to learners develop confidence solving ambiguous, complex, and open

problems as responsible educators must recognize, remove, and exclude stereotypes

free from bias from the environment and embrace an inclusive collaborative diverse

culture, self-efficacy, strength and needs, and actionable feedback that sees failures as

opportunities to learn and innovate.

This study emphasized that equity and access are the catalyst at the educator’s disposal

for promoting learners’ empowerment, engagement, and agency. Equity and access should not

be confused or interchangeable with equality as few participants, even with CS experience

described and explained. One experienced participant said, “everyone should be equal, not

equitable.”

Four out eleven participants defined the term equity access as equal access to devices

and connectivity of the internet and ignored equity access around the task design, content

knowledge, teachers’ preparedness, and only focused most of the time on the emergence of

the digital divide. One participant said, many children did not do their homework due to the

lack of devices or Wi-Fi and still continue to have different equipment and resources at

131
home, and that is not fair. The NETP (National Education Technology Plan) and the FRS

(Future Ready Schools) anticipated these challenges and acknowledged that the digital divide

still exists, preventing students from getting the opportunities to be successful in the digital

world. FRS articulates a vision of equity, active use of tools aiming to guide connectivity

devices, and quality digital learning resources with appropriate infrastructure.

Findings from the study suggest the need to create a responsible environment. Three out

of eleven participants identified and highlighted the importance of a sustainable system of

support to promote empowerment, and a sense of agency based on CRSE and SEL responsible

environments to promote equity and access. The data finding also revealed that equitable access

is, “a supportive environment where students can make mistakes considering their cultural

backgrounds.” Findings from the study are supported from the literature review, ISTE

(International Society for Technology in Education) and The Framework for Remote Teaching

(Danielson, 2020) explained the need for educators to know and value their students as an asset

and encourage a system of support that prioritizes culturally relevant learning activities that

address different perspectives on computing embedded in CRSE practice and SEL practices.

Social Media

Most participants (98%) used videos from YouTube to enrich and enhance their lesson

plans. Three of eleven have used social media to improve home and school communication, and

lead class discussion and debate, while few other participants considered social media a free

powerful tool for instruction, and networking. However, findings also revealed that social media

had beneficial and adverse outcomes. One participant explained that he would like to learn how

to incorporate social media effectively due to the vulnerability of affecting learner’s morals

and values. The findings also showed that is the educator’s responsibility to plan

developmentally and model proper use effectively strategically, otherwise it may have

132
detrimental effects on children learning. Finding supports ISTE educator’s standards.

Drawing from the study’s findings, most interviewees used social media to enhance

instruction, motivate learners, and communicate with parents. The study’s findings also

indicated one of the eleven participants demonstrated using social media instead of the cell

phone to improve home-school communication instantly. Twitter Hashtags for Education

(2020) can be an educator's tool to create their own Personal Learning Network (PLN) for

educational purposes. Educators can connect with others who are like-minded and pursue

topics of their interest through different hashtags of their preferences in different disciplines

(i.e., technology, science) incorporating images, text, and videos. A plethora of teacher-based

LMS (Web 2.0 technologies, Nearpod's, and Pear deck) linked to Google Classroom,

Instagram, and Tweeters for leveraging equity and accessibility. A completely and super

powerful network that does not require any application, educators can augment participation

and social presence in real settings by designing a group working project in the real world

having the sense to be outside of the classroom and working with Partnerships (Grosseck and

Holotescu, 2008).

Negative Impact on Students’ Achievement and School Improvement

Participants in this study identified multiple roadblocks that prevent building a

responsible environment for learning that supports and prioritizes equitable access. First and

foremost, four out of eleven participants explained that the digital divide still exists as

students lacked devices and experienced poor connectivity. Even more, those who had at least

some devices and connectivity could not log in, navigate the platform, interact or share the

learning experiences back and forth with the teacher or other learners because the learners did

not know how to use the device or the applications properly (e.g., digital use divide). For

many participants, remote learning was the first time the school district used this platform

133
which adversely affected local students (i.e., shelter) and students abroad by the winter recess

in February. Some other inequities, besides those current needs and contexts (e.g., disparities

in health issues, economic, social justice) were also language barriers, limitation of resources

for ELLs such as e-assessment. Data findings revealed lack of parental support, and lack of

social presence.

Findings in this study showed that when face-to-face is disrupted, the alternative,

online learning can be very stressful for all stakeholders (internal and external). The literature

review supports findings from the study (NETP, 2017; ISTE, 2019; and The Danielson

Framework Remote for Teaching, 2020) have clearly stated the importance of creating systems

that support and prioritized equity and access at the forefront.

Collaborative and Supportive Culture Matter

Additional findings from the study showed as the time progressed from early March

2019, a system of supports was being set in place to leverage inequities on demand such as:

teacher’ collegiality supporting each other, hard copies, and the textbook was distributed, lunch,

available P.C. loaners, and a task force desk to support technology disparities. Systems that

support and prioritize equity and access can close the achievement gap as the equity leader

communicates with learners, parents, and leaders proactively to counter stereotypes that

exclude students from opportunities to excel in school, life, and career (ISTE, 2019).

Previous Experiences in CS Facilitate Higher Level of integration

In early March 2020, more than half of the participants used and integrated technology at

different levels to support ELA and math curricula regardless of roadblocks in the infrastructure

(e.g., limited ELLs resources, lack of teacher’s preparedness, or stereotypes in the environment

that excluded students from opportunities to excel). Most participants with no choice, developed

collegial support around colleagues with positive attitudes and creativity from COVID

134
experiences and proactively advanced education considering current context and needs aligned

to the school mission. Participants figured out established, and adjusted systems and supports

that prioritized equitable access, and SEL and CRSE best practices. Finally, regardless of the

infrastructure and the curriculum challenges, those who had CS backgrounds versus those who

lacked technological experiences did better to meet responsible technology integration.

Digital Divide, Use Divide, Equity-Access Still Exist

Surprisingly, the findings from the study identified that the digital divide and digital use

divide still exist. The interception of the concepts and practices was adversely affected by the

poor infrastructure reported (e.g., lack of device, poor connectivity), the absence of an informed

curriculum or blueprint, and resources for ELLs, and e-assessments tools to meet students

where they are. As previously mentioned in the literature review, NETP (2017), FRS (2018),

and Danielson Framework Remote for Teaching (2020) articulated the kind of responsible

environment that prioritizes equity and access to achieve excellence in school improvement.

Educators with CS Experiences

TPACK and 5 R’s

Computer Science background can augment educator’s ability to strategically design

equitable access plan for instruction. This data analysis revealed insights into varied

experiences and levels of knowledge of educators with CS. One of the participants knew and

valued the learners as he created an anonymous survey (due to distraction, and lack of

discipline on the task), continued with routines held before March 2019, reviewed prior

lectures, and purposely remixed existing PowerPoint slides, adding recorded voices to engage

students. The previous data supported the research from the literature review about teachers’

effectiveness in integrating technology through TPACK. Swallow and Olofson (2017)

explained the importance of educators aligning innovative and creative technology with

135
pedagogical practices, and content knowledge. Findings from this particular study also

supported 5 R’s practices (see coding with scratch) that demonstrated learner's empowerment

in a collaborative-based socio-cultural model of digital practice with the advent of the Internet

to retain, reused, remixed (e.g., augment, modify, redefine), redesigned, and redistributed the

PowerPoint presentation. (Wiley and Hilton, 2018).

Coding with Scratch

Some experienced participants integrated bilingual coding language technology to create

computational artifacts offering automated feedback that involve scientific skills (e.g.,

collaboration and creativity) and engineering skills (e.g., programming, coding) using Scratch

language to design games. Consistent with the literature, TPACK and 5 R’s can support coding.

Findings from the study suggested that educators had an excellent knowledge of the learners, the

resources, content, and pedagogy. At scratch.mit.edu, an open and collaborative network for

accessing commonly license resources, students’ account had the opportunity to retain a game

already designed by another peer from the depository, new users can re-use it (give credit to the

creator to avoid plagiarism), remix it, redesign it according to the needs, context, interest, and

then redistribute again to the public.

Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)

Data that pertained to the theme of SEL showed that there was the need to shift

priorities from cognitive (intellectual) to social-emotional competencies (inter, intra skills) as

students looked less motivated and lacked social presence during synchronous task. One

participant stated that the lack of preparedness from both teachers and students made you feel

skeptical, professionally and academically; however, it required one to become more persistent

and flexible, and adapt to a new normalcy. Findings from this study suggested that as learners

confront new challenges for ambiguous and complex problems, educators must encourage

136
learners to develop persistence, self-discipline, self-control, self-efficacy, and collaboration for

sustaining engagement on the task (ISTE, 2017).

Learning Management System (LMS) and SEL

With respect to LMS and SEL concerns, one participant explained how using Google

Classroom and break-out rooms seemed to allowed students not to feel alone, to feel valued and

respected, and to build relationship wherein they could become co-creator and co-collaborator of

their own knowledge and progress. As they published tasks already improved by the teacher and

with students’ feedback, the creativity and innovations were amazing. One participant added she

frequently instructed her students to use “I do, we do, and you do.” Google Classroom is a

Learning Management System (LMS) known as the virtual classroom space or hub, that

facilitates educators to store, organize, distribute, collect learning experiences, and boost

collaboration integrated with google docs.

Educators with Less Experience

Conversely, 73% of the study participants integrated technology to support the ELA and

math curriculum to reinforce practices and facilitate self-improvement opportunities. Findings

suggested that many of these participants were those who had some challenges managing the

core concepts previously mentioned in Theme I. Some examples of integration were use of

technology to explore math topics, learning new vocabulary, editing, and typing.

Puentedure (2016) encouraged teachers and learners to use technology to redesign

learning spaces for technology integration as learners use technology (e.g., think of the writing

process) to substitute the task, then to augment the task, to modify the task, and, to make it more

accessible to the audience, the student can redefine the task by adding special features. TPACK

and SAMR measure and evaluate teachers’ readiness for classroom practices. From the findings,

learning vocabulary, editing, or typing are considered low levels of technology integration.

137
Blackboard (2017) reported that most districts in the U.S. are more than 50% at substitution and

augmentation levels (i.e., lower levels of integration), while less than one-third are within

modifications or redefinition requiring significant changes. The findings from the study

represent lower levels of integrations.

In-Person Learning, the Benefits of Remote Learning, and the School Mission

Most of the study participants demonstrated a great attitude and identified more benefits

than challenges in integrating remote learning into their instruction. Technology is emerging in

an ever-changing digital economy and the possibility that another disruption may occur is very

likely. The Google Classroom Platform allowed teachers and students to confront their beliefs

and tested their assumptions of how online learning looked like they wondered how to align the

current and future needs to the school’s mission to educate every child regardless of their SES.

Benefits of Remote Learning

More than half of the participants found multiple benefits in remote learning. Two out of

eleven participants explained that remote learning facilitates equity by offering access to

multiple resources and where students and teachers were connected with each other by

synchronous or asynchronous tasks. Some others explained that students and teachers became

co-creator and co-collaborator of knowledge construction by giving each other instant feedback

as educators and students maintained accurate records (e.g., analytic dashboard) of students’

progress and evidence-based learning. Another benefit, identified by two participants, was that

educators could personalize and customize instruction through breakout rooms considering

current learners’ needs and levels based on previous e-assessments. One participant also

identified that teachers and students benefit from reteaching, accountability, and doing entry and

exit slips as a formative assessment.

Findings from this study confirmed that remote learning can occur in or out of school

138
and offers greater flexibility for interaction and collaboration as students and teachers saw time

as a barrier to learning (Barone et al., 2001). Remote learning should be gradually implemented

as supplemental instruction by creating a small group in a modular course and exemplifying the

task value (e.g., how interesting or important is the task) for participation and engagement

(Hewrber, 2018).

Knowledge of the Learner and Equity at Risk

Five out of eleven participants in this study identified a lot of roadblocks at the

learner’s level and the infrastructure. This study showed that there was consistent evidence of

lack of discipline, positive attitude, a lot of distraction at Zoom conferences, failure to submit

assignments, lack of self-efficacy, and students lied about being in school when where they

were not. Some other obstacles were related to the infrastructure of the school and at home.

One participant said, there was poor connectivity and access to a device and a lack of

high-quality tools. In addition, limited resources for ELLs and lack of parental support added

to deepen the digital use divide. This study’s findings are consistent with the literature review,

in that NETP (2017) and FRS (2018) also addressed the need to have a strong infrastructure

(e.g., hardware and software) for achievement and engagement.

The Positive Mindset

Some participants in this study felt very skeptical as the technology is emerging and the

future of the current practices still cannot be measured unless 5, 10, even 20 years have passed.

It is important to proactively change the mindset of educators to see the challenges as

opportunities to improve teaching and learning methods. Educators can demonstrate persistence

and a positive attitude. One explained that the educational system must go with technology

trends and educators must adapt to the changes as technology will persist. Another participant

added that it is very important for pre-service and in-service educators to work with passion,

139
persistence, creativity, and learn how to learn and collaboratively co-create and co-construct new

knowledge. Finally, three out of eleven participants added that educators must be willing to

change their attitude to learn and adapt and welcome new ways of learning.

These findings support research from Ikhwan (2019), who argued that a good attitude

among teachers to design student-centered activities can motivate ELLs greatly in teaching and

learning technology and learning with technology. A positive attitude leads to intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation, a significant factor for sustainable and successful social presence in

e-learning.

School Mission

Most participants agreed that the school mission must be embraced with a system that

supports and prioritizes equity and access, persistence, adaptability, and promotes an

inclusive culture within an interconnected world. Three out of eleven participants agreed that

technology must be integrated into everyday practice as educators continue to re-imagine

pedagogy. Regardless of the instructional platform, stakeholders should adapt themselves to

new emerging technology to not fall behind when technology persists. One participant

added, there would be time for multidisciplinary educators to come back to plan

collaboratively and assess the effectiveness of instruction on specific platforms and make

necessary adaptations to improve instruction.

These study findings above demonstrated how important it is for emerging responsive

online educators to extend, provoke, and re-imagine their current pedagogies moving forward.

Educators must have the commitment to know and value their students (i.e, persistence, and

adaptability) and to create a responsive environment atmosphere (i.e., inclusive, prioritize

equity and access). Lastly, responsive educators in disciplinary professional learning

communities (PLCs) must purposely plan tech-based engaging lessons considering the

140
experiences during Covid-19 experiences with technology-based instruction, remote learning

settings, and prioritize learnings to meet students where they are.

Relation to the Existing Literature

What is a “Renewable Task” and why does it matter?

Participants in this study identified the benefits of remote learning, challenges they

faced, and changes in attitude to adopt a new way of teaching and learning. The benefits of

remote learning Through Google Classroom (LMS) transcend to learner’s ownership and sense

of agency of creating knowledge through co-collaborating in a public forum and by exchanging

ideas and obtaining instant feedback from educators and peers. This dynamic also influences the

learner’s behavior during instruction in science skills (i.e., collaborative skills and

problem-solving) and engineering skills (e.g., constructing knowledge collaboratively through

social networks). Findings in this study support findings of previous studies regarding open

pedagogical practices (i.e., Google Classroom, OER-enabled pedagogy), where students create

learning artifacts in public forums through a commonly open license. The task is created

collaboratively and its value goes beyond the creator (Wiley and Hilton, 2018). The term,

“renewable task” can now be seen with the influx of the Internet and could be influenced by

SAMR (2016) and 5 R’s (Caswell, Henson, Jensen, and Wiley, 2008; Wiley and Hilton, 2018).

When educators use “renewable tasks,” individual students are not only empowered, but viewed

in human interaction as they adapt themselves to the provisional changes in the 21st Century

digital economy, personally, organizationally, and globally (Gardiner, 2016).

Motivated Personnel to Integrate Tech, but an Equitable Culture is Urgent

Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the study participants explained that four tech-based

platforms drive a well-round high-quality education that embraces every learner to demonstrate

141
a sense of agency and empowerment. Some participants explained that the integrated platform

must be mandatory district-wide for educational practitioners when they are strategically

planning, delivering instruction, and performing ongoing formative assessments. The platform

must have a reliable infrastructure at all times and high-quality tools for implementation.

Assessment must be student-centered, and students must have a high degree of discipline,

self-regulation, and attitude toward completing the task.

Tech-Based Curriculum Planning

Findings revealed that most of the participants agreed that tech-based planning is part

of responsible teaching as it must prioritize equity and access and requires to be constantly

updated to motivate and engage students. Some participants explained that educators could use

One Drive to store lesson plans or student artifacts, retrieve, share, edit, and collaborate with

colleagues in real-time. Findings also showed that math had not changed, and when planning

you could re-use, remix, and not scrap or reject existing curricula. Finally, although some

participants said that tech-based planning could be time-consuming and challenging (e.g., not a

blueprint available), many other participants see it as a core subject that should be taught every

day.

Findings in this study support the literature in Chapter 2 regarding creativity and design,

the ISTE Standards for educators (2019), to design activities that ask students to leverage a

design process (e.g., present the problem as a question, imagine a solution, write the plan,

execute the plan, build a prototype, test it, improve it) to solve problems with awareness of the

technical and human contains, and to defend their design choices.

The Task, the Network, and Accommodation

One Drive, a G-suite network component, and a plethora of Massive Online Open

Courses (MOCCs) can facilitate and improve tech-based planning by giving all educators

142
involved equal rights to create and edit documents. ISTE (2019) and NGSS encouraged equity

leaders to create tasks where learners capitalize on innovative design solutions by using a variety

of digital tools supported in the Engineering Design process (e.g., problem as a question, write

the plan, execute the plan, build a prototype, test it, improve it, defend it). Sayapraga (2020) and

Chow (March 20, 2020) agreed that although the in-person instruction ceased, learning must

continue, opened with strategic student-centered planning in authentic collaborative networks

(i.e., Google Meet, Zoom, Teams). The author argued that when planning instruction,

practitioners must take into account accommodation and flexibility and demonstrate kindness

and high self-esteem. They also need to learn new experiences as days passed, taking advantage

of Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) which are offered by partnerships, and always

aligning the goals of the lesson with the school mission (ISTE, March 20, 2020).

Tech-Based Differentiation

Findings from the study showed that just like tech-based planning, tech-based

differentiation is also part of responsible teaching in leveraging the playing field? during the

disrupted instruction. The findings also revealed that technology-based differentiation relies on

e-assessment to drive equity and access. However, high-quality digital tools in and out of

schools must be updated and aligned to trade and military. Finally, one participant reflected,

who you teach (know your student) matters more than what you teach, as the ELL specialist’s

role to determine strength and needs through e-assessment is questionable.

Theoretical Implication

Researching for teacher’s perceptions to improve pedagogical practice to challenge,

develop, and construct students learning experiences through online learning in a crisis is

challenging as instructional technology is still growing. From the findings of this study, this year

looked like it was the first year of teaching for many participants. What did these challenges

143
mean to the participants of this study? Did they, at some point, have to change their teaching

style? The answer was not easy but demanded participants to reflect on how they would extend

or improve their teaching styles to impact all students regardless of their SES, especially the

underserved ELL Latinx population attending schools in urban settings.

The eleven participants’ narratives and perspectives of what they experienced from

the implementation of the changes in curricula illuminated their thoughts and feelings,

providing insights about persistence and engagement. The study revealed that many

practitioners did not know common concepts, practices, and attitudes about technology

integration that are relevant for school improvement in the 21st Century economy. More than

half of the participants lacked tech-based core concepts from the technology standards, and

99% of them identified numerous roadblocks for technology integration. It was also worth

noting how they thrived positively through complex changes with the aid of systems that

prioritized equity and access in their school district.

As a result of this educational crisis (e.g., including the health issues, social unrest, and

economic distress), it became apparent that teacher developmental practices must be based on

the existing teaching approaches described in the literature review. TPACK, SAMR, 5 R’s,

Computational Thinking (CT), and The Framework Remote for Teaching must continue to be at

the forefront for theory development in the next few years as these approaches are very

comprehensive in breadth and depth to support teacher development around digital pedagogies.

The above mentioned practices, measure teachers’ capacity and readiness for effective

technology integration.

The Framework Remote for Teaching (8 indicators) supports responsible teaching by

valuing the knowledge of the learner; establishing a responsible environment; and

promoting engagement. CT honed in on students’ and educators’ standards to facilitate the

144
cognitive and soft-skills, and technical skills necessary to apply CS practices.

Instead of focusing on quantitative research practices moving forward, theory

development should be consistent with the basic qualitative research, increasing the sampling

size to reach out to students, parents, and administrators, who played a significant factor in the

struggles and success of the new normalcy.

Practical Implications

Several practical conclusions can be drawn from this study.

First, there is a need for pre-service teacher preparation programs to better prepare

teachers to enhance their practices with technology, and better educate and support

disadvantaged students attending schools in urban settings. Addressing basic principles,

concepts, standards, and best practices of CT based on the CS practices should be the first

priority in curriculum or induction programs. There is an urgency to improve students’

achievement and engagement, yet technology integration continues to be a challenge for

educators since there are many of them, according to the findings that were not prepared

to teach online during Covid-19.

Second, there was sizable evidence of inequity in access to resources in the learning

environment. School districts and local agencies must be responsible to provide high-quality

devices and connectivity for both teachers and students. Findings from this study revealed the

digital divide still existed as well as the digital use divide. Other than the lack of educators'

preparedness, the literature revealed that the digital use divide was more the focus for the

researcher other than the digital use divide. Findings showed that both were roadblocks for

successful technology implementation. Creating a responsible learning environment that

prioritizes equity and access across the board is urgent.

Finally, there is an urgency to increase students’ achievement and engagement as one is

145
still uncertain about the future of this health crisis (COVID-19). Pre-service and in-service

teachers need to work together to improve their practice by joining theory and practices and

focusing on the principle of CS seen through the lenses of CT. Blended classrooms are the best

lab to experiment with the future of a technological world where you can verify what works and

what does not work remotely. Many stakeholders have been exposed to a plethora of resources

that no one had ever seen before. The opportunity for creativity and innovation are at their

fingertips to enhance their lessons and empower learners.

Future Implications

Teachers’ future practices should evolve around developing student autonomy and

empowerment through digital equity and access. It is sad to say that most educators understand

the importance of access when they face legal action (CoSN, 2018). Findings from the study

revealed that many of the practitioners interviewed did not define equity and access in the

spectrum of the academic, but only related equity to have or not to have the devices or

connectivity issues. Equity and access are big words that need understanding in practice. CT can

offer more insights into equity and access. Emerging new concepts are on the rise such as

“equity leader.” How does CT define equity leaders? An equity leader is a leader that proactively

counters stereotypes about excluding students from opportunities to excel, and instead fosters an

inclusive and diverse classroom culture that incorporates values, self-efficacy, and confidence

(ISTE,2019). Microsoft Innovator Educator (MIE), a free program, offers extensive support to

educators in understanding digital accessibility to promote equity. Equity drives empowerment

and autonomy. Student’s autonomy sets a culture of self-directed learners.

Limitations of the Study

Limitations identified in Chapter 3 remained throughout research analysis and

interpretation. However, new restrictions emerged that need to be considered. The

146
sample size is one limitation with only 11 participants and a singular geographical

research site location. As a result, the findings are limited in scope.

The researcher’s expectation was that the participants genuinely responded according

to their occupational credentials, individual experiences, and practices. However, the

researcher could not ensure the degree of honesty for participants’ knowledge and past

practices. Some participants even though they had some CS background offered unclear

responses due to the lack of exposure to emerging technology-based tools. Many of them did

not define some key terms or did not know the existence of a tech-based curriculum plan at

their schools. Arnold and Feldman (1981) referred to this dishonesty as an individuals’ desire

to present themselves in a favorable manner when responding to specific questions or

statements.

A third limitation was recognized during the data collection of the research process. Even

though most of the educators demonstrated enthusiasm to participate in the interview, more than

half rescheduled the interview several times acknowledging to be working under stress and felt

overwhelmed due to multiple roadblocks (e.g., digital divide and digital use divide, others) that

ELL learners and themselves faced upon delivering and sharing of content knowledge.

Recommendation for Future Research

From the findings, the analysis, and conclusions of this study, the following

recommendations can be made. Researchers should continue studying the digital dive and the

digital use divide through the lenses of Computational Thinking (CT) practices as described by

the ISTE and CSTA standards to continue improving teachers’ perception in integrating

technology ubiquitously for all students of different ethnic background. CT supported in the

student’s and educator's standard and lays its foundation on systems that prioritize equity and

access, knowledge of the learner (CRSE, CASEL, growth mindset), responsible environment

147
(digital citizenship), and engagement (metacognition). Research findings from the literature also

suggested that “ISTE recognizes that the CS concepts frame in current standards and

frameworks are not only new to students but educators as well.” (ISTE, 2019). The findings of

this study confirmed, as restated in the study’s implication, that more than half of the teachers

had challenges with equity and access to resources but did not know important key words

around CS practices, as they challenged students’ learning experiences remotely.

Recommendation for Practice

Teachers and students are viewed as learners and researchers and should develop a

culture that encourages students to become producers rather than just consumers of technology

(NETP, 2017). Equity leaders, anyone in charge of school improvement, needs to assess and

manage classroom culture to drive equitable student participation, address exclusionary

dynamics, and counter implicit bias (ISTE, 2019). It is recommended that with the plethora of

digital tools (e.g., MOOCs, OERs), leaders are encouraged to use TPACK, SAMR, 5 R’s, and

Danielson’s Framework Remote for Teaching to re-imagine pedagogy and design strategic tasks

that integrate Culturally Responsive Equity-Based STEAM curriculum to meet the needs of all

students and families in low SES areas. We all know that traditional K-12 math and science

education largely excludes women, people of color, native people, and other marginalized

populations. Wiley and Hilton (2018) explained that with the advent of the Internet, “Renewable

Task,” an open pedagogy practice, is a task that can be improved and updated instantly and

collaboratively with benefits that reach beyond the creator.

While Whiley and Hilton (2018) explained the importance of the Renewable Task, the

structure of the task is suggested at the discretion of the researcher in two parts (A, B). For

better performance, a high-quality internet connection and a LMS platform (e.g., Google

Classroom, One Drive) are recommended. The task must be authentic around the Sustainable

148
Development Goals (UN, 2016) which are human-centered and should inform the learning

targets, essential questions, and criteria for success (for self-regulation), and rubrics. Part, A, the

body part of the task should contain three main components: intellectual skills (Higher Order

Thinking-Bloom Taxonomy), inter-collaboration skills (pair grouping-break out room), and

intra-collaborative skills (feedback, peer-to-peer feedback). Part B (monthly), students defend

the task in public as a product of incorporating CT skills (scientific method & engineering,

technical and engineering design) to create a computing artifact (ISTE, 2019). Part A and B

must be developed considering the whole child concept (CRSE, SEL, and growth mindset) for

risk-taking, for planning, for creating a responsible environment, engagement (Danielson RTF,

2020). Lastly, whenever synchronous instruction is available, the instructor may use Nearpod

apps to facilitate and enhance content delivery, sharing, and formative assessment.

Contribution of the Study

The aim to explore teachers’ perception of integrating technology in the ELL

population is to improve teachers’ practices and empower educators to empower students to

become active learners and creators of technologies. Educators are essential contributors to the

moral aspect of education in society. Unfortunately, this study’s findings revealed that many

educators were not prepared to educate marginalized populations attending an urban

northeastern school district in the United States. It is understandable that many educators come

from other careers, outside of teaching. But, at least in the first three months they all must have

at hand a technology blueprint that includes the standards and best practices around STEAM

fields, regardless of the subject area they teach. Practitioners cannot talk about technology in

isolation, instead, it should be integrated for all grades in schools and beyond. CRSE STEAM

skills should be in known to the public for each person's own good, for the institution, the

economy, and for the national security (White House STEAM Task Force, 2017).

149
 Educational leaders can start creating professional development through PLC, and

MOOCs, OERs to foster reflective thinking practices to promote systems that prioritize equity

and access and support educators to build more authentic bridges between school learning and

everyday life. G-Suite (Gmail-free, waffle (doc, one drive, G Meets) or Microsoft Teams can

serve as the LMS platform to store, share, and deliver just-in-time messages, feedback, making

thinking visible, and more to inform instruction around data-driven decision making (DDDM).

More accountability from policymakers in getting more funding to make sure that the

digital divide is mitigated first is required, then educators can address the digital use divide

through equitable practices (ISTE, 2019; NETP, 2017). Technology can unleash the future of an

individual to achieve economic freedom. For many decades for many marginalized populations

living in low SES school districts, technology literacy was an elective class where math and

science were prerequisites, reducing the chances for students with low scores in math and

science to apply and be accepted (Cheryl, 1982).

With so many ambiguous and human-centered complex challenges identified in the

SDGs (2016), the future direction of the body of knowledge should be focused on research that

aims to explore and develop human capital (all ages, ethnicities, gender, and SES). Every

learner must become an agent of change with a sense of agency to create services around

equitable practices in STEAM fields to achieve excellence for all.

Last but not least, the data collected from the semi-structured interview provide guidance

to inform researchers and practitioners about future data-driven decision-making practices

(DDDM). Data collected, clean, and analyzed will inform current and future practitioners (i.e.

teachers, administrator, service providers, policymakers, and interested groups) at the local

district level to leverage equity access plans to infuse emerging technologies and digital

resources utilized to meet learners’ needs and practitioners’ goals around technology integration.

150
The consortium of school networks (CoSN, 2016) suggested that to leverage digital

transformation students must be provided with opportunities to learn from teachers who have

self-efficacy to use technology tools to enhance learning for all students. School practices that

lead to student’s profound level of achievement and excellence in equity are those where teachers

have equitable access to the tools and skills to support students (CoSN, 2016; NETP, 2017; ISTE,

2018).

Conclusion

The findings identified that most of the study participants exhibited a lack of awareness

and limited scope of technology-based core concepts and best practices. No one mentioned

any standards or curriculum associated with technology or science, and equality was often

interchangeable. One participant stated, “Computer Science, what that means, so I cannot give

you a clear answer because I don't understand what that means.” This study’s findings also

identified that participants had to overcome multiple roadblocks associated with limited

devices, poor connectivity, lack of participation, and support from the parents. The inequity of

access placed students at a disadvantage in leading school improvement. Participants felt that

delivering and sharing content with learners was very challenging at the beginning. However,

as time progressed, and more support arrived from collegial circles and the superintendent task

force, students’ instructional delivery and sharing of content began to improve.

It is worth noting that professional development is beneficial to educators. Participants

with more technological experiences versus participants with less experiences demonstrated

higher levels of CS comprehension and integration. Most participants agreed that in-person

learning could not be replaced; however, they welcomed the opportunity to support a

supplementary remote education as part of the school mission. All participants agreed to have a

positive attitude to integrate technology-based practices, however, a collaborative culture that

151
prioritizes equitable access is urgently needed.

After five years of my own study and from the reviewed research for this study, I noticed

how technology has been taught in isolation, impacting marginalized populations. The previous

study thought that the digital use divide was more the area to focus on instead of the digital

divide (NETP, 2017). But the reality is, as determined in this study findings, that the digital

divide was amplified during the pandemic and continues to be a roadblock for achieving success

in Latinx ELLs, marginalized populations. This study’s significance other than exploring

teachers’ perception of technology integration was to discover and prescribe educators’

responsibility to challenge and develop student learning experiences using ubiquitous computing

through remote learning during a crisis.

The takeaway was that learners were exposed to technology in authentic situations where

social distance was at stake and the school had to be closed. The inquiry remains unsolved since

the digital divide still exists, the digital use divide continues to be a challenge, and the inequity

of access grows deeper. It is not right for the students. It is not right for educators. It is not right

for the country's national security. This only increases educational stratification, which has been

a challenge for marginalized populations (CRSE, 2019).

152
 References

Albert, A. B., Emery, J. L., (November 3, 2017). Putting constructivist learning theory into

practice: Using educational technology to engage students and assess their learning. Brick

& Click Libraries Conference Proceedings. Retrieved August 10, 2018 from

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1059138

Anya, S., et al. (2019). Teacher perceptions of integrating technology in writing, Technology,

Pedagogy and Education, 28(1), 1-19. Retrieved from

https://eric.ed.gov/q=teacher+perceptions+of+integrating+technology+in+writing%2

c+anya+et+al.%2c+2019&id=EJ1212148

Barone, A., Diana, G., Hawkins, B. L., & Oblinger, D. G. (2001). Distributed education and its

challenges: An overview. American Council on Education. ED 457 766 retrieved from:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457766.pdf

Benning, K., & Tucker, E. (September 17, 2018). District Administration. Personalizing learning

through digital reading platform. Retrieved from

https://www.districtadministration.com/article/personalizing-learning-through-digitalread

ing-platforms.

Project Tomorrow. (2017). Trends in Digital learning: Building teachers’ capacity and

competency to create new learning experiences for students. Blackboard. Retrieved from

https://images.email.blackboard.com/Web/BlackboardInc/%7B6651397a-eb7d-4088-847

1-3eac0140990a%7D_K12_2017_Report_TrendsInDigitalLearning.pdf

Butler, D., Hallissy, M., Hurley, J., & Marshall, K. (2013). Redesigning education: Meeting the

challenges of the 21st Century. Microsoft. Retrieved from

http://blog.teachnet.ie/docs/MSLearningPaperMay13.pdf

153
Carretero, Punie, Y., & Vuorikari, R., (2017). DigComp 2.1. The digital competence framework

for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. EUR 28558 EN. doi:

10.2760138842. Retrieved on September 25th, 2019 from

https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC106281/web-digcomp2.1pdf

_(online).pdf

Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open educational resources: Enabling

universal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,

9(1). Retrieved April 21, 2019 from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/469/1009

Chinyamurindi, W.T., & Dlaza, Z. (2018). Can you teach an old dog new tricks? An exploratory

study into how sample of lectures develop digital literacies as part of their career

development. Journal of the Reading Association of South Africa, 9(1): 191.

Doi.org/10.4102/rw.v9/1.191. Retrieved from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1197779.pdf

Christie, M., Carey, M., Robertson, A., & Grainger, A.P. (2015). Putting transformative learning

theory into practice. Australian Journal of Adult Learning. 55(1), 9-30. Retrieved from

http://cucproxy.cuchicago.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr

ue&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s8419239&db=eric&AN=EJ1059138&site=ehost-

live

Coiro, J. (2015). The magic of wondering: Building understanding through online inquiry. The

Reading Teacher. 69(2), 189-193, DOI:10.10.1002/trtr1399

154
Cole, R., et al. (2018). Computer science in New York City: An early look at teacher training

opportunities and the landscape of CS implementation in Schools. Research Alliance for

New York City Schools. Retrieved on April 21, 2019 from

https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/ks191/CS4All/CS4All_Report.pdf

Computer Science for All (2015). Retrieved on April 21, 2019 from

https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/education-vision-2015-computer-science.page

Consortium for School Networking (CoSN). (2016). Digital Equity: Supporting Students and

Families in Out-of-School Learning. Retrieved July 10, 2018 from https://www.cosn.org/

Creswell, J. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (5th ed.). Pearson.

Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, B. M., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support

at risk students learning. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved

from

https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-pub-using-technology-report.pdf

Evans, A. J. (2018). Beyond engagement: Using technology to enable new learning experiences

and empower educational effectiveness. Briefing Paper. The Educational Equity

Imperative: Speak Up Research Project for Digital Learning. Retrieved from

files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED591339.pdf

Federal Register (2018). Applications for new awards: Educational technology, media, and

materials for individuals with disabilities-center on technology systems in local

educational agencies. The Daily Journal of the United States Government. Department of

Education. Retrieved on April 22 nd, 2019 from:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-07-10/pdf/2018-14692.pdf

155
Finn, L. (May 6, 2020). Teachers blast Cuomo’s “Reimagine Education” technology plan.

Retrieved from

https://patch.com/new-york/newhydepark/s/h3tuv/teachers-blast-cuomos-reimagine-educ

ation-technology-plan?utm_term=article-slot-1&utm_source=newsletter-daily&utm_med

ium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

Fogg, P. (July, 2018). When generations collide. Chronicle of Higher Education. 54(45), 1-7.

Retrieved July 10, 2018

Friedman, S., (2019). How teachers incorporate STEM learning into the classroom. The Journal.

Retrieved on October 23, 2019 from:

https://thejournal.com/articles/2019/10/21/how-teachers-incorporate-stem-learning-into-t

he-classroom.aspx?m=1

Foster, K. M. (2006). Bridging troubled waters: Principles for teaching in times of crisis. Penn

GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 4(2) Fall 2006, retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ852623.pdf

Future Ready Schools. (2018). Future ready schools announce new program for school and

district technology leaders. Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved September 29,

2018 from

https://futureready.org/future-ready-schools-announces-new-program-for-school-and-dist

rict-technology-leaders/

156
Gallardo-Echenique, E., Marques-Molias, L., Bullen, M., & Strijbos, J. (2015). Let’s talk about

digital learners in the digital era. International Review of Research in Open and

Distributed Learning, 16(156-187). Retrieved April 25, 2021 from

https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/2015-v16-n3-irrodl04980/1065978ar/

Gardiner, J., (Spring 2006). Transactional, transformational, and transcendent leadership:

Metaphors mapping the evolution of the theory and practice of governance. Kravis

Leadership Review Institute. Claremont McKenna College, 6(2006), 62-76.

Garza, K. (2019). 21st Century Student Outcomes & Support Systems. Partnership for 21st

Century learning. A Network of Battelleforkids. Retrieved on April 21, 2019 from:

http://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21

Grant, M.J. (June 5, 2019), Antitrust wars: A new (false) hope? The Supreme Court's Decision in

Apple v. Pepper. Retrieved on April 25, 2021 from

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3407623.

Gruszczynska, A., Merchant, G., & Pountney, R. (2013). Digital futures in teacher education:

Exploring open approaches towards digital literacy. The Electronic Journal of

e-Learning. 11(3): 193-206. Retrieved August 10, 2018 from www.ejel.org

Harrell, S., & Bynum, Y. (2018). Factors affecting technology integration in the classroom.

Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership. 5, 12-18. Retrieved from

files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1194723.pdf

Herbert, D. M. (2018). Enriching learning, empowering students, and maintaining faculty sanity

in online courses. Research Issues in Contemporary Education, 3(1), 67 – 72.

Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1244633.pdf

157
Higgins, T. (2019). Supreme court deals Apple major setback in app store antitrust case.

Retrieved on December 26, 2019 from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/409788583/Apple-Supreme- Court-

ruling#fullscreen&from_embed

Hong, H., Moghadam, H. S., Ravitz, J., & Wang, J. (2016). Landscape of K-12 Computer

Science Education in the U.S.: Perceptions, Access, and Barriers. Retrieved on April 21,

2019 from

file:///Users/juniorhernandez/Desktop/Junior%20Ph.D%20last%20edition/CS%20Landsc

ape%20of%20CS%20K12%20in%20US-%20perceptions,%20access,%20and%20barrier

s%202018.pdf

Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual

frameworks? Journal of Sciences. 38(2),185-195.

International Society of Technology in Education. (2016). Redefining Learning in a

Technology-Driven World: A Report to Support Adoption of the ISTE Standards for

Students. International Society for Technology in Education. 2017 Conference.

Retrieved on April 25, 2025 from

https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/Libraries/Documents%20%26%20Files/Standards-Resourc

es/ISTE%20Standards_Students-2016_Research-Validity%20Report_final.pdf

International Society Technology in Education. (ISTE, April 20, 2020). Using ESSA to fund

edTech: Getting the most of Title IV-A retrieved from

https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/%5B2020%20UPDATES%5D%20USING%20ESSA%20T

O%20FUND%20EDTECH%20(1).pdf

158
Jones, R., & Fox, C. (2018). Navigating the digital shift 2018: Broadening student learning

Opportunities. (Report). State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA).

Retrieved on December 25, 2019 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED594415.pdf

Katz, V. S., & Levine, M. H. ( Winter 2015). Connecting to Learn: Promoting Digital Equity

among America's Hispanic Families (Rep. No. ED555584). Retrieved September 29,

2018, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555584.

Kennedy, F., & Poland, A.M. (2018). Developing future talent. How we can prepare for the

future of work and business. Retrieved on April 25, 2021 from:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED593997.pdf

Kivunja, C. (2014). Do you want your students to be job-ready with 21st Century skills? Change

pedagogies: A pedagogical paradigm shift from Vygotskyian social constructivism to

critical thinking, problem solving and Siemes’ digital connectivism. International

Journal of Higher Education. 3(3): 81-91, doi: 10.5430/ijhe. Retrieved from

http://sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/ijhe/article/view/5156

Lee, D., Watson, L. S. R., Watson, R. & Watson, W. R. (2020). The relationships between

self-efficacy, task value, and self-regulated leaning strategies in massive open online

courses (MOOCs). Retrieved from International Review of Research in Open and

Distributed Learning, Vol. 1(21). Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1240719.pdf

Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational

Review. 62(3), 279-300. Retrieved September 29, 2018 from www.Mawell92.pff

McMillan, H. J., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based Inquiry. (6th

ed.). Virginia Commonwealth University.

159
McLeod, S. (March 20, 2020). Achievement gap-social-emotional learning, and inequality of

access of resources. Wake up call to having tech for all in these inequities and gaps that

exist, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Retrieved from

https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html#collapseTwo

Mitchell, C. (March 17, 2020). English learners may be left behind as remote learning

becomes “New Normal.” Retrieved from

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/english-learners-may-be-left-behind-as-remot

e-learning-becomes-new-normal/2020/03

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.

(93rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Meyers, S. M., Lamberti, C. J., & Lyons-Thomas, J. (2018). Culturally responsive-sustaining

education. Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Framework Project. (Report). New York

State Education Department. Retrieved on September 23, 2019 from

https://www.regents.nysed.gov/common/regents/files/FB%20Monday%20-%20CR-S%2

0Framework.pdf

National Academy Press.(2016). Engineering technology education in the United States. The

National Academies Press. Retrieved from /www.nap.edu. Doi: 10.17226/23402.

National Academy Press. (2019). Monitoring Educational Equity. The National Academies

Press. Retrieved on January 21, 2020 from

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25389/monitoring-educational-equity.

https://doi.org/10.17226/25389.

National Council of Teacher of English (October, 2018). Retrieved from www2.ncte.org

160
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2016). Pedagogical Implementation of 21st Century

Skills. Framework for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved July 10, 2018 from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1094407.pdf ,Vera Jacobson-Lundeberg

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.

Piaget, J. (2011). The spirit of solidarity in children and international cooperation (1931).

University of Chicago Press, Journals Division, 8(1), 74-89. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/659425

Price-Denis, D., Holmes, K. A., & Smith, E. (2015). Exploring digital literacy practices in an

inclusive classroom. The Reader Journal. Retrieved September 29, 2018 from

https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/trtr.1398. doi: 10.10002trtr.1398.

School Quality Snapshot. (2017-18). (Report). New York City Department of Education.

Retrieved from https://tools.nycenet.edu/snapshot/2018/06M366/EMS/

Sensoy, O., & Yildirim, H. I. (2018). Impact of technological pedagogical content

knowledge-based education applications on prospective teachers’ self-efficacy belief

levels toward science education. Journal of Education and Training Studies. 6(10).

Retrieved from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1187269.pdf. Doi: 10.11114/jets.v6i10.3433

Soland, J. (2019). English language learners, self-efficacy, and the achievement gap. The

Collaborative for Student Growth at NWEA Research Brief. Retrieved from

file:///Users/juniorhernandez/Downloads/EnglishLanguageLearnersSelfEfficacyandtheAc

hieve entGap.pdf

Swallow, J. C., & Olofson, M. W. (2017). Contextual understandings in the TPACK framework,

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3-4), 228-244. Retrieved from

10.1080/15391523.2017.1347537

161
Thannimalai, R., & Raman, A. (2018). The influence of principals’ technology leadership and

professional development on teachers’ technology integration in secondary schools.

Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 15(1), 203-228. Retrieved from

files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1185796.pdf

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2016). Understanding the

relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A

systematic review of qualitative evidence. Association for Educational Communications

and Technology. Education Tech Research Division. Retrieved August 10, 2018 from

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2.

Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2010). Bracketing in Qualitative Research. Sage Journal. 11(1), 80-

96. Retrieved September 29, 2018 from https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316.

United Nations (2018). Digital revolution. (Regional Report: Europe and North America.).

Retrieved September 30, 2018 from

http://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/documents/regional-reports/

United Nations (2016). Sustainable Developmental Goals. Retrieved on April 21, 2019 from

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/education/

U. S. Department of Education. (2018). Application for New Awards: Educational Technology,

Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities. 83(132), 31955-31963. Retrieved

July 10, 2018 from

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/10/2018-14692/applications-for-new

-awards-educational-technology-media-and-materials-for-individuals-with

162
U. S. Department of Education. (2017). Re-imagining the Role of Technology in Education:

National Education Technology Plan Update, 2017. Office of Educational Technology.

Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/netp/.

United States Government (2018). Public high schools with more students in poverty and smaller

schools provide fewer academic offerings to prepare for college. Accountability Office

(USGAO). Retrieved on April 22 nd, 2019 from:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590911.pdf

Weller, M. (2013). The battle for open: A Perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education.

Retrieved on April 23, 2019 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1034712.pdf

Wiley, D., & Hilton III, J. L. (2018). Defining OER-Enabled Pedagogy. The International

Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4),

133-146. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3601/4769. Defining OER

http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3022.

Yi, L., (2015). Is the professional Development an effective way to mitigate teachers’ gender

differences in technology? Result from a statewide teacher professional development

program. Journal of Education and Training Studies. 4(2), 21-26.Doi: 10.11114/jets.

Retrieved from: files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1080862.pdf

Zayapragassarazan, Z. (2020) COVID-19: Strategies for Engaging Remote Learners in Medical

Education. Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research

(JIPMER),India. Department of Medical Education. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604479.pdf

163
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-06085-001

164
 Appendix A: INFORMED CONSENT FORM

I, ______________________________________ hereby give my consent to be a participant

in the study entitled Middle School (7-8 grades) Teachers’ Perception of Technology
Integration in Teaching Latinx Students in a U.S. Metropolitan School District, conducted by
Junior Hernandez, a graduate student in the Doctoral Program of Educational Leadership at
Concordia University Chicago.
I understand that if I agree to participate in this study, I will be asked to do the
following: participate in a face-to-face interview with 10 open-ended questions for
30-45 minutes. All interview times will be accommodated for your convenience.
I am aware that my participation is voluntary and may be withdrawn at any time without
penalty or prejudice. I also understand that there is no foreseeable emotional or physical
risk to the participants in this study. And, if I have any additional questions concerning
this study, I may contact Junior Hernandez at 201-674-8355,
crf_hernanj5@cuchicago.edu or Andrea L. Silverstein, Dissertation Chair at
516-698-9938, Andrea.Silverstein@cuchicago.edu. I understand that if I wish further
information regarding my rights as a research subject, I may contact the Institutional
Review Board at Concordia University Chicago at irb@cuchicago.edu.
I have received clear information about the aims and methods of the research and
understand that neither my name nor any identifying characteristics will be identifiable in
the study in order to protect my privacy. Results of the assessment instruments and
technology intervention tools will not be published or publicly presented at any time and
are for use only in fulfilling the requirements of the my Degree Program in Educational
Leadership from Concordia University Chicago.
I understand that the researcher would obtain my written consent if the data collected for
this study is used beyond the scope of the original project, including additional research
papers, published articles, theses or visual or verbal representation of the information that
I have shared.
The researcher has offered to share a copy of the finished product with me.
I understand that my consent to participate in this project does not constitute a waiver of a
legal rights or redress I might have as a result of my participation, and I acknowledge that
I have received a copy of this consent form. Upon completion of this study, data will be
stored, locked, and destroyed after three years from my computer’s archives by
overwriting information multiple times.

Signature of
Subject:______________________________Date:________________________
Date of IRB Approval:_______________________CUC IRB Study ID#:

165
Appendix B : Site Permission – Educational Technology Research Study

July 30th, 2020

Dear Administrator:
I, Junior Hernandez, am enrolled in the Doctoral Program of Educational Leadership at
Concordia University Chicago. As part of the course requirement I am to conduct a
qualitative investigation to explore Middle School (7-8 grades) Teachers’ Perception of
Technology Integration in Teaching Latinx Students in a U.S. Metropolitan School
District. The interview will consist of 10 open-ended questions that inform how
educators have used technology integration in and out the classroom (i.e., COVID-19)
to reimagine and transform students’ learning experiences.
I am kindly requesting administrative permission to solicit subjects to participate in the
research study at:______________________________________________________.
Participants will not be identified, and they may refuse participation. Results of this
Research Study will not be published or publicly presented at any time and are for use
only in fulfilling the requirements of my Doctoral Program Degree.
In signing this form, permission is granted for the above Doctoral Candidate to collect
the subjects’ account as stipulated in the research methodology of the dissertation
pre-proposal. Should you have any question, you may contact the Dissertation Chair,
Andrea L. Silverstein who can be reached at 516-698-9938,
Andrea.Silverstein@cuchicago.edu for any questions regarding this research study.

Administrator:

___________________________ ________________________ ________

Print Name Signature Date CUC Student:

____________________________ ________________________ ________ Print

Name Signature Date

166
 Appendix C : Individual Interview Protocol and Questions

Research Reads Aloud:

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. You were asked to
participate in this session to provide individual insight on your thoughts about your
experiences integrating technology with ELLs in and out the school walls to transform
learners’ experiences before and during COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study
is to explore Middle School (7-8 grades) Teachers’ Perception of Technology Integration
in Teaching Latinx Students in a U.S. Metropolitan School District. Research has shown
that many teachers are not digitally equipped to effectively use technology tools to
challenge, develop, and construct student's learning experiences in authentic setting
contexts through online social networks (Kivunja, 2104). This study will add to the
existing body of research and could serve as a guide in support of stronger technology
integration curriculum with Middle School Level (7-8) ELL students in ELA as well as
impacting current 21-century pedagogical practices.
This session will be recorded and transcribed: however, any information you
share will remain anonymous; your names and all personal information will be replaced
with pseudonyms; and all transcriptions and recordings will be destroyed 3 years after
completing this study. Do you have any questions about the study or require clarification
on any information noted in the informed consent form? Please remember, as with any
part of this study, you may choose to voluntary participate in or opt out of this session
without repercussions.
Central Research Question—Sub-questions:

What is Middle School (7-8 grades) Teachers’ Perception of Technology Integration

in Teaching Latinx Students in a U.S. Metropolitan School District?

1) How would you describe the use of technology in your subject area with English

Language Learners (ELLs) population?

2) How did the COVID-19 pandemic impact your perception of technology

integration in your subject area and how did this perception change, especially

addressing ELLs population?

167
3) Have you ever encountered any issues implementing technology in your

practices, especially with the ELLs population?

4) Based on your remote learning experiences after COVID-19, what are the

advantages and disadvantages of traditional face-to-face education versus remote

learning? And how your new achieved experiences can contribute to reimagine and

re-build school mission to educate every child regardless of the ethnicity and

social-economic status (SES)?

5) Given the fact that During COVID-19 pandemic you integrated technology

through remote learning, how would you define Computer Science (CS) with

Latinx students?

6) What is your perception of equitable access?

7)What is your perception of technology-based curriculum planning?

8)What is your perception of social media (i.e., You tube, Facebook,

twitter)? 9) What is your perception of technology-based differentiation

learning in ELLs?

10) How would you envision a connection among equity, technology-based

curriculum planning, social media, and technology-based differentiation learning

in ELLs?

Thank You for your Participation!!!!

168
 Appendix D : Recruitment Tool
Study Title: Middle School (7-8 grades) Teachers’ Perception of Technology
Integration in Teaching Latinx Students in a U.S. Metropolitan School District
Date of IRB Approval:_______________________CUC IRB Study ID#: __________________

Dear Educator:
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this research study. You are kindly
requested to participate in this study at the suggestion of your administrative team to
provide individual insight about your experiences integrating technology with ELLs to
transform learners’ experiences before and during COVID-19 pandemic. You are
eligible to participate in this study regardless of your technological experience and
frequency of use in or out the classroom walls.
The purpose of this study is to explore Middle School (7-8 grades) Teachers’
Perception of Technology Integration in Teaching Latinx Students in a U.S. Metropolitan
School District. Research has shown that many teachers are not digitally equipped to
effectively use technology tools to challenge, develop, and construct student's learning
experiences in authentic setting contexts through online social networks (Kivunja, 2104).
You will not receive any financial compensation for taking the interview. However, your
participation in this study will add to the existing body of research and could serve as a
guide in support of stronger technology integration curriculum with Middle School Level
(7-8) ELL impacting current 21-century pedagogical practices.
The interview process will be recorded and transcribed: however, any information
you share will remain anonymous; your names and all personal information will be
replaced with pseudonyms; and all transcriptions and recordings will be destroyed 3 years
after completing this study. Please remember, you may choose to voluntarily participate in
or opt out of this session without repercussions. Should you have any questions about the
study, do not hesitate to contact myself (201)-674-8355, crf_hernanj5@cuconcordia.edu
or the Institutional Review Board at Concordia University Chicago at irb@cuchicago.edu.

Sincerely Yours,
Junior Hernandez, Researcher
By signing this recruitment form, you confirm that you have read and understand your
voluntary participation in this study. You also understand that your participation is
voluntary and that you are free to withdraw at any time without giving reason or being
subjected to any consequence.

169
 Please put a check X in the box that applies.
☐Yes I agree to participate in the study

☐Yes I agree to be audio taped during the interview

Participant Name:_____________________Signature of

Participant________________________ Primary investigator:___________________Signature

of Investigator: __________________________

170
 ProQuest Number: 28492925

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2021 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

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