CALIFORNIA ST A TE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS

THESIS SIGNATURE PAGE

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

MASTER OF ARTS

IN

EDUCATION

THESIS TITLE : UNDERSTANDING THE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PEDAGOGICAL

PRACTICES WITHIN SECONDARY SCHOOL SETTINGS

AUTHOR: Josh Clements

DATE OF SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE: May 1, 2018

THE THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE THESIS COMMITTEE IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN
EDUCATION.

Sinem Siyahhan 05/07/2018

THESIS COMMITTEE CHAIR DATE

Rong-Ji Chen 05/07/2018

THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER DATE
UNDERSTANDING THE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES

WITHIN SECONDARY SCHOOL SETTINGS

Josh Clements

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Masters in Arts

in the School of Education

California State University San Marcos

May 2018
 Abstract

This study investigates the ways in which classroom teachers utilize educational

technology in the classroom. The research focused on the types, the frequency as well as the

methods of educational technology use in the classroom. The research also focused on the

principles and practices of teachers in relation to technology use; specifically, the SAMR

model. The research was conducted using an online survey consisting of 30 questions. 96

respondents were collected from a variety of disciplines. The data illustrates that teachers within

the study are achieving the transformative stages of the SAMR model primarily within lessons

devoted to student creation and learning. Recommendations for the participant school district

include more time devoted to educational technology lesson design for all teachers.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Tables .............................................................................................................................................. v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 3
Preview of the Literature ............................................................................................................. 4
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 6
The Teacher’s Role in Educational Technology ......................................................................... 6
Factors Impacting Teachers’ Technology Use in the Classroom ................................................ 8
Access to Technology in Schools.............................................................................................. 11
Using Educational Technology in Order to Facilitate Instruction ............................................ 13
Classroom Models with Educational Technology Integration .................................................. 15
Summary of the Chapter ........................................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 18
Design........................................................................................................................................ 18
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 19
Setting........................................................................................................................................ 22
The Demographics of Middle Schools .................................................................................. 22
The Demographics of High Schools...................................................................................... 23
Instrument.................................................................................................................................. 24
Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 28
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 28
Summary of the Chapter ........................................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 30
Technology Use in the Classroom ............................................................................................ 30
Reasons for Using Technology Devices................................................................................ 31
Different Ways Teachers Integrate Technology in the Classroom........................................ 33
Teachers’ Beliefs and Perceptions around Technology ............................................................ 34
Barriers to Technology Use in the Classroom .......................................................................... 35

iii
 Where Do Teachers Fit in the SAMR Model ............................................................................ 36
Enhancement: Substitution and Augmentation ..................................................................... 36
Transformation: Modification and Redefinition.................................................................... 37
Results from Open-Ended Survey Questions ............................................................................ 38
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 41
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 41
Educational Implications ........................................................................................................... 44
Limitations and Future Research............................................................................................... 45
References ................................................................................................................................. 47

iv
 Tables

Table 1. Educational Technology Training Attendance

Table 2. Percentages of Frequency of Technology Device Use in the Classroom

Table 3. Ways in Which Teachers Integrate Technology in their Classrooms by Grade Level

Table 4. Teachers’ Perceptions of Themselves Regarding Educational Technology

v
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

There has been a dramatic shift in the modern K-12 environment in the last twenty years.

The shift has occurred primarily due to the increased use and advancements of technology. The

idea of computers in the classroom is not a new concept. In fact, most students who graduated

high school within the last twenty-five years probably remember going to the computer lab to

play Oregon Trail or practiced basic skills while on Math Blaster. These examples refer to a

time when the computer existed without the connection to the world wide web. The integration

of the Internet in homes and schools across the country during the mid to late 1990s changed the

way individuals access and gather information. Today, students and teachers can use their

iPhone or laptop and gather hundreds of facts about a particular topic. Gone are the days of

using class time to only memorize dates and recite facts and statistics. Finding basic information

can be accessed with the swipe of a finger. The constant access to information and technology

has demanded a shift in instructional practices. The question shifted from “what the student

knows” to “what the student will do with the information they now know”

New learning goals have emerged due to this pedagogical shift: learning and thinking

skills, information and communications technology literacy skills, and life skills that high school

students should master by graduation (Greifner, 2006). From this, there have been trends in

education that have emerged from the aforementioned objectives as they pertain to the use of

educational technology in the classroom. These trends include, among other things, the use of

the SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition) model of different levels

of technology integration in the classroom. The SAMR model is a guide for teachers to

1
implement and use technology effectively and meaningfully in the classroom to optimize

students’ learning. This model categorizes four levels of engagement with technology: (1)

substitution, (2) augmentation, (3) modification and (4) redefinition. Substitution” refers to

teachers’ engagement with technology at an entry level where technology is used to perform the

same tasks that were performed without the technology. For example, a teacher facilitates the use

of Microsoft PowerPoint in order for the students to simply type information that they have

learned about a particular topic on consecutive slides. Augmentation refers to the next step in

this model. In this step additional layers of enhancement are added by the student. For example,

a student adds images, transitions and animations to a Microsoft PowerPoint project in addition

to the written text. The modification and redefinition stages signify a shift in this model from

lesson enhancement to lesson transformation (Puentedura, 2018, January 15). Media such as

audio and video are defining characteristic of the modification stage of this model. For example,

a teacher facilitates the use of software which allow for students to include upload specific video

clips and/or include student generated narration to support their understanding of the content.

Redefinition refers to the final step of this model. Within the redefinition step students create

products that could not be created with materials other than an electronic device. For example,

students in a class are placed in small groups and are given one section of a history textbook to

interpret. The teacher then directs each group to use an online animation tool to represent the

content of the articulation sections of the text. In addition to the animation, the students record

their own narration to illustrate their learning. The student creation at the redefinition stage is

the highest level of the SAMR model as well as bloom’s taxonomy.

2
 Purpose of the Study

Even though there is constant access to educational technology and professional

developments regarding the aforementioned new pedagogical trends, not all teachers are

learning, engaging with, and practicing them. The primary goal of this study to determine how

teachers in the Paradisio Unified School District currently facilitate the use of educational

technology in their classrooms. It is essential to learn how teachers are using the technology they

are provided in order to identify which teachers are using technology in order to promote critical

thinking, high-order thinking skills, and analyze the factors that contribute to this use.

Additionally, it is essential to understand at what level other teachers are using technology and

what factors are impeding the high-quality technology integration in the classroom. To this end,

a survey that is informed by the SAMR model was administered to 96 teachers. The survey

questions include teacher attitudes about technology, the types of professional developments

teachers have attended, the types of technology used in the classroom, and the types of student

products produced as a result of technology integration.

Research Questions

1. The overarching research question that guides this study is as follows: How do teachers

use technology in the classroom? The sub-research questions include: What technology

tools do teachers have access to in the classroom? Out of the technology tools they have

access to, how many do teachers utilize in the classroom? What are the types of

technology tools do teachers utilize?

3
 2. How do teachers utilize technology tools? What are the products generated by the

students as a result?

3. How does teachers’ utilization of technology tools map onto the SAMR model? How

many teachers fall into substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition levels?

4. What are the reasons for teachers to utilize the technology tools the way they do? What

are the factors that impede teachers’ ability to make progress through the SAMR model

of integrating technology in the classroom?

Preview of the Literature

Although many school districts are moving to 1:1 (student to computer ratio) learning

environments, researchers have defined that there is a distinct and expanding divide regarding

educational technology use. This divide is defined by the marked difference of how educators

are using the technology within their classrooms (Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011). To

understand this divide, several factors must to be analyzed: the role of the teacher, the factors

which limit technology use, as well as ideal classroom and instructional models.

First, the role of the teacher as technology facilitator needs to be considered as a possible

contributing factor (ISTE Standards for Teachers, 2008). Teachers face significant pressures as

they attempt to implement 21st century skills in order for their students to feel prepared for the

future and empowered as individuals. This pressure relates to the teachers’ own confidence level

and pedagogical principles relating to educational technology (DeGennaro & Brown 2009;

Goode, 2010; Zhao, 2014).

The teachers’ view, outlook and training (or lack thereof) need to be considered when

analyzing technology implementation. The teachers’ pedagogy and preparation related to

4
educational technology significantly impacts the type of educational technology implementation

in their classrooms (Banister & Fischer, 2010; Herold, 2016; Kay, Knaack, & Petrarca, 2009;

Petko, 2015; Vannata, & Fordham, 2004). Additionally, some teachers are simply reluctant to

devote the time to necessary to implement technology and/or change their curriculum to

accommodate educational technology use (Speak Up Survey, 2017; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck

2001; Reinhart, Thomas E., & Toriskie 2011; Vrasidas, 2010).

The implementation of education technology has affected instructional practices,

subsequent learning goals and has helped shaped the classroom environment. Through the

implementation of educational technology teachers now can create lessons which transcend the

core curriculum; allowing students to practice 21st century skills while illustrating their learning

in a personal, creative and innovative way (California Common Core State Standards, 2013;

Krauss, 2012; Maslin & Nelson, 2002; Oher, 2014; Project Tomorrow 2017; Romrell, 2014).

Innovative educational technology practices cannot be simply achieved. These types of practices

need to be shaped and supported through the implementation of specialized programs, trainings

and thoughtful curricular choices (Lacey 2014; Staker, & Horn 2012; Project Tomorrow 2017;

Thompson, 2014; Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016).

Significance of the Study

The results of this survey will determine whether or not the attitudes of the teachers in the

Paradisio Unified School District coincide with those teachers included in the literature

reviewed. Additionally, the results of this survey will address the gaps in the research. Through

the research, gaps were apparent regarding the student output while using educational

technology; answering the question: what do the students do with the technology they use?

5
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

There is a range of implementation of educational technology in all classrooms. In some

classes, technology is at the heart of the teacher’s pedagogical principles. In others, it only plays

a peripheral role. This study searches for the factors which contribute to the different pedagogies

and attitudes about educational technology. There is a trend in education to move to a 1:1

(student to computer) model. However, there are concerns that teachers are not prepared for

such a shift in their curriculum. If it does occur, there is a concern that teachers will only

implement technology as merely a substitution for pen and paper and will not engage in the

potential for innovation. Many scholars label this as the “second level digital divide” (SLDD);

the difference or “divide” in how technology is used. In contrast, the “top level” divide is a

difference between the “haves” and the “have nots” as it pertains to technology tools (Reinhart,

Thomas, and Toriskie, 2011). This study attempts to identify factors which can contribute to the

use of educational technology in order to promote student innovation, growth, and creativity. The

understanding of the educational technology available to facilitate innovative classrooms and the

environment which fosters such innovation are two factors which could assist in the

implementation of innovative technology lesson design and reduce the SLDD within a particular

school district.

The Teacher’s Role in Educational Technology

At the heart of educational technology use is the teacher as facilitator. It is the educator

who will or will not facilitate the use of technology in their classroom. Since 2008 the

6
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), has provided school districts and

classroom teachers with technology standards to use as a guide. Each standard gives explicit

directions for teachers regarding their role relating to technology use in the classroom and at

their school site. ISTE utilizes labels for educators such as “learner,” “leader,” “collaborator,”

“facilitator” and “designer” (2008). These labels infer the teacher’s specific roles as it pertains to

incorporating educational technology within their classroom and at their school site. These

standards transcend specific content areas and focus on specific 21st century skills that students

will be required to use in the future. This includes college and the ever-changing job market.

Educators need to give all of their students’ confidence as they move from high school on

to college as it pertains to educational technology. Too often we are sending students to college

without preparing them adequately in relation to computer use and technology. This is evident

through the various narratives of minority students who report that they were not properly

prepared for college as it regarding technology use when asked to assess their confidence level

(Goode, 2010). These students are going off to college but are seeing a defined gap between

their exposure to and use of technology than those of their English-only speaking peers. Without

teachers effectively applying technological innovation there is a real potential for the

marginalization of students who are not prepared to be active participants in the 21st century

workforce. Hence, there needs to be a major shift in the role of teachers (Reinhart, Thomas &

Toriskie, 2011).

We are preparing students for a job market that doesn’t exist through standardized

testing. It was once possible to predict and prescribe the skills and knowledge one might need for

success in a given society because societies were isolated from each other and the pace of change

was slow. Moreover, the majority of the jobs were created by a few exceptionally creative and

7
entrepreneurial individuals and required similar skills. We need to start personalizing education

to support the development of unique, creative, and entrepreneurial talents. We must start

empowering the children by liberating their potentials, capitalizing on their passion, and

supporting their pursuits; subsequently giving them ownership over their learning, (Zhao, 2014).

Through their study, Reinhart, Thomas and Toriskie (2011) found that schools need to

promote higher-order thinking in a way with which students can identify. Researchers have also

come to the conclusion that it is essential for school sites, districts and educators to not solely

rely on the current expectations of educational technology plans (DeGennaro & Brown, 2009).

Instead, they should collaborate, reflect, design and revise these lessons, units and curriculum so

that student success (both current and future) is at its core (DeGennaro & Brown, 2009;

Halverson 2009; Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011).

Factors Impacting Teachers’ Technology Use in the Classroom

Educators, like their students, are made up of a diverse population with differing views of

educational technology. Some teachers feel that their students were more successful as it

appeared to significantly engage the students (Kay, Knaack, & Petrarca, 2009). However, there is

hesitancy from others to engage their students with curriculum steeped in technology. This point

is made valid through the findings of Project Tomorrow’s Speak Up survey: 67% of technology

leaders say that the greatest challenge they face in implementing digital learning or expanding

technology use is motivating teachers to change their traditional instructional practices to use

technology more meaningfully with students (Speak Up Survey, 2017). Studies have also

shown that teachers often feel they do not have enough time to cover their content area

curriculum, let alone integrate technology (Vrasidas, 2010). Research also indicates that there is

8
a marked difference in how information and communication technology (ICT) is being used

within K-12 schools. Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001) report that there are two general

explanations for this difference. The first explanation is that teachers are slow to adapt

technology, which is a human factor. The process takes time and is inconsistent within schools.

The second explanation has to do with physical or digital factors that include school

infrastructure, the use of time within the schools, and flawed technology (Cuban et al., 2001).

For instance, Cuban et al. (2001) report that teachers did not have enough time in the school day,

much less at home, to do all of the things they were expected to do and then find time to

integrate computers and other technologies into their classroom routines.

Additional studies have shown that the social economic status (SES) of students has an

impact on teachers’ integration of technology in their classroom. Data suggests that the teachers

who work with students with low-income students have a more positive attitude regarding

integrating technology in their classroom than students with higher incomes. This suggests that

the teacher wants to provide students learning experiences that they would not have at home

(Blackwell, Lauricella, & Wartella, 2014).

Other studies identify the factor of teachers’ attitudes about the technology integration.

Some teachers state that they use technology for administrative purposes but do not use or

facilitate the use of educational technology aside from emphasizing curricular concepts or

preparing students for exams (Chen, 2008). Many teachers are unaware of the potential that

educational technology can have in their classrooms and for their students. Professional

development for inservice teachers is also an important practice that can improve the effective

use of technology in the classroom and combat this barrier. Convenient access to technology,

teacher training to promote a higher degree of technology integration, and adequate time for

9
planning technology-supported lessons are important factors. Technology trainings give teachers

the skills and frameworks in order to be able to use technology in an active, not passive way.

These skills and frameworks are then transferred to the classroom and allow for students to

develop their own thoughts and subsequently create projects which exceed the expectations of

their teachers (Herold, 2016).

Banister and Fischer (2010) found that the SLDD can be reduced by providing continued

technology support and training that motivates teachers to utilize technology in their classroom.

Professional developments are essential to not only reduce the effects of the SLDD, but to allow

for teachers of all experience levels to move past the “novice” conventions of educational

technology use to more innovative techniques (Banister & Fischer, 2010; Reinhart, Thomas, &

Toriskie, 2011). With regard to the teachers’ skills, it is hardly surprising that teachers’ own

estimation of their skills for using ICT (information and communication technologies) in the

classroom show a positive impact on actual use (Petko, 2015). There are several factors which

contribute to the effective, innovative technology use.

For the methodical integration of educational technology to be viable and long-lasting

teachers must embody specific attitudes and behaviors. There needs to be a willingness to

commit one’s time to this endeavor. Additionally, factors such as having an openness to change

and innovation assist teachers with education technology integration. These characteristics as

well as being open to make mistakes, learn from them and take risks also contribute to the

educational technology integration in their classroom (Vannata & Fordham, 2004).

10
 Access to Technology in Schools

Over the past forty years there has been a distinct increase of the availability of

educational technology tools in the classroom. The ratio of student to computer was the main

metric for which districts and schools measured educational technology success. Twenty years

ago, a computer was the only option for students and teachers for the use and implementation of

technology in the classroom. Today, the types of mobile technology (technology used in

conjunction with Wi-Fi) and the use for school work is very different. Students use a variety of

different technology tools for school work including laptops, notebooks, Chromebooks,

smartphones and tablets and hybrid computers. Most students use one of these technology tools

2-3 times per week. Laptops, notebooks, and Chromebooks are the most used (61%) during this

frequency and hybrid computers are the least (10%). The use of these different tools ranges, but

the current reality is that very few students (17%) never use technology tools for educational

purposes (Pearson, n.d.). Regardless of the era, researchers have always wondered what students

are doing with the technology that they have been given (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001).

Even though previous studies have illustrated that most students have access to

educational technology with high-speed internet at their public schools (NCES, 2011), there is a

noticeable separation occurring between those students in families have low socioeconomic

status (SES) and those who students whose families have high socioeconomic status (SES). The

students who have high SES are able to continue their education using technology at home

because they have the same or similar provided to them, the students with low SES usually do

not (Becker, 2000; Boveeˊ et. al., 2007; Livingstone, 2007; Vryzas & Tsitouridou; 2002). We

can recognize this shift as a distinct digital divide. At the core of this divide the lack of

educational opportunities provided for those students belonging to low SES homes (Thieman &

11
Cevallos, 2017). This divide could exacerbate the social inequalities worldwide by benefiting

those students who belong to high SES because they are able to practice the necessary

technology-based skills outside of a school setting (Attewell & Battle, 1999; Warschauer, 2007).

This lack of access affects student outlook and confidence level as it pertains to educational

technology.

The lack of educational technology stemming from low SES affects the students’

attitudes about ICT skills. They do not have the same confidence level as those students with

continual technology access at both school and home. This affects the likelihood of personal

empowerment of necessary 21st century skills for these students. Studies have shown that

families from all SES backgrounds tend to have high interest and positive views of educational

technology. However, students from low SES backgrounds reported to have low confidence

levels relating to their ICT skills. It is worth noting that the parents of students of low SES find

importance in purchasing computers for their students. The disconnect seems to stem from the

parents’ knowledge about ICT skills which correlates with student practice and subsequently

their confidence level (Vekiri, 2010; Attewell, 2001; Hesseldahl 2008; Ritzhaupt, Liu, Dawson

& Barron, 2013).

Another contributing factor to this digital divide is the different ways teachers and

schools prepare their varying populations as it relates to 21st century skills. Schools within low

SES populations tend to use ‘drill and kill’ practices software whereas school within high SES

populations are more likely to use software geared toward productivity (Ritzhaupt, Liu, Dawson

& Barron, 2013). In addition to the differences in the software, researchers have found that

curriculum and technology taught by teachers in schools with higher SES populations was more

intellectually rigorous and provided more opportunities for students to engage in creativity than

12
curriculum taught by teachers teaching in schools with lower SES populations (DeWitt 2007;

Valdez & Duran, 2007).

Using Educational Technology in Order to Facilitate Instruction

In the 21st century, computers and mobile devices are commonly used within the K-12

education community. With the implementation of technology, student engagement and interest

are peaked and heightened. (Arencibia, 2013). While considering the implementation of

technology, educators must be aware that they are not developing products but are facilitating a

design process for their students and at times, for themselves. Romrell, Hastings and Herold,

authors cited in this literature, subscribe to the idea that there is a constant design process at work

when educators consider implementing technology. Through this process, teachers must make

pedagogical choices as they consider their desired learning outcomes and the cognitive change

they want to see in their students’ output. The learning outcomes need to the be goal of all

technology implementation (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016). As teachers make these

choices and consider the range of implementation of technology, they should also consider The

Depth of Knowledge regarding the curricular content. The Depth of Knowledge (DOK) model is

employed to analyze the cognitive expectation demanded by standards, curricular activities and

assessment tasks (Webb, 1997). The model is based upon the assumption that curricular elements

may all be categorized based upon the cognitive demands required to produce an acceptable

response. Each grouping of tasks reflects a different level of cognitive expectation, or depth of

knowledge, required to complete the task. (Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Guide, 2009).

Through educational technology students and teachers have the opportunity to meet

literacy education curricular needs as well as give them the opportunity to read, write, publish

13
and produce with real-life purpose. It is this significance that educational technology affords

students and teacher (Maslin & Nelson, 2002). Additionally, many teachers feel that educational

technology affords more differentiation so that more students have access to the curriculum

(Project Tomorrow 2017). The Common Core State Standards also reflect technology

integration by requiring students to “integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse media

and formats, including visually and quantitatively, as well as words,” (California Common Core

State Standards, 2013).

In order to achieve these learning objectives, there are many educational tools and

pedagogical principles educators can implement. They may use the principles found in the

SAMR model. This model is an acronym for specific methods. This model defines the use of

technology as: merely a “substitution,” for traditional methods, the simple “augmentation” of the

lesson through the use technology, a more complex “modification” and the “redefinition” of the

lesson or task’s final product through the use of technology.” This model can be paired with

mobile technology in order to create personalized, situated learning. (Romrell, 2014). With the

advent of innovative practices and advancements of technology as well as the subsequent

integration, students can make meaning of their learning through the creation of infographics and

similar graphic representation to showcase what they have learned (Krauss, 2012) . Students

also have the ability to create something new as well as learn through different modalities

through the use of alternate reality (AR) gallery walks to visualize date or engage in digital

storytelling (Oher, 2014). This type of learning is supported by researchers like Robert Marzano

who confirmed that learners acquire and store knowledge through linguistic systems which they

use when they read or listen to lectures and nonlinguistic systems, which they tap to process

14
computer simulations and kinesthetic activities. The more students use both systems, they better

they are able to store, recall and apply new understandings (Krauss 2012).

Classroom Models with Educational Technology Integration

Many factors and perspectives contribute to the use of educational technology for

students and teachers to redefine their learning experiences. According to national reports, there

are computers available in almost all classrooms. In addition, there is a high student to computer

ratio. Most teachers report that they use computers often (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis 2010). These

facts do not automatically equate to innovative technology use. One factor that helps facilitate an

environment devoted to innovative technology use is the support of the district. Many districts

are allocating funds to move to a one computer to one student ratio (1:1). There are others who

allow students to bring their own personal device to be used on the school’s wifi (BYOD). There

are some who do both. There are some districts who have both 1:1 and BYOD implemented in

addition to consistent and applicable professional development and support of "Tech Mentors."

These districts also foster innovative educational technology design through “innovation

incubators;” opportunities to develop and implement creative technology ideas. (Thompson,

2014). Other districts have even empowered their students by creating student technology teams

(STTs). Some STTs facilitate in-person and online technology trainings for both teachers and

students (Peterson & Scharber, 2017). Even though the BYOD movement is a positive trend,

BYOD implementation must be scalable and match curricular goals. Leaders are learning how to

align the technology with what is going on in the classroom and how to effectively integrate

plans which coincide with district and site goals (Lacey 2014).

15
 Similar to the teacher’s choice of incorporating educational technology to support

learning goals, they also need to determine how much time will be devoted to learning online.

There are many models for a classroom designed for methodical technology integration. One

particular framework is blended learning; the integration of online learning to supplement the

classroom curriculum. There are several models for blended learning integration. The first is a

rotation model. Within a rotation model, teachers determine where and when online learning

occurs as well as what type(s) of different modalities are used in order to support student

learning. Teachers may opt to have station rotations, lab rotations, flipped classrooms or

individual rotations. The latter supports differentiated instruction explicitly. (Staker, & Horn

2012). Teachers who have experienced online and blended classes for their own professional

learning demonstrate advanced uses of technology with their own students, have stronger

valuations on the role of technology within learning, and higher aspirations for leveraging

technology to support transformed learning environments. (Project Tomorrow 2017).

Summary of the Chapter

There is a responsibility for all stakeholders in in the K-12 educational community to

work together to develop methodical and productive plans for educational technology

integration. There are individuals who have a desire to shape the structure of the classroom with

the innovative use of educational technology. However, there is the realization that with this

desire comes great responsibility for all teachers. It is all teachers who are responsible for

implementing, facilitating and progressing the integration of educational technology. It is the

school district and school-sites who are responsible for providing educators with the training

they need to combat specific hurdles as it pertains to educational technology integration. This

16
type of support facilitates the implementation of critical thinking and personalized learning. Even

though there is a trend to push educational technology into all classrooms, there are factors that

must be considered. These factors include teachers’ perspectives of their current and potential

use as well as a school site’s focus on 21st century skills. In addition, the level of district support

must also be considered. The districts who are supportive and have strategic implementation

plans are the most successful. Students in certain classrooms will be better prepared for the 21st

century than students in other classes because they will be using the technology differently than

their peers. This SLDD factor is essential to analyze at each site in order to bridge this gap.

17
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

A survey was created to address specific questions related to the use of educational

technology within middle and high school classrooms. Specifically, this survey was tailored for

teachers who teach at these grade levels within one school district in north county San Diego.

The survey asked the teachers what technology tools they have access to in the classroom and

what tools they actually utilize. Additionally, the survey attempted to ascertain the various ways

in which the teachers use the technology tools they claimed they used in their classrooms to

achieve student learning. The researcher also created questions for the survey which attempted to

define the types of products the students generated through their use of educational technology.

One of the goals of this study was to determine how a group of teachers’ utilizations of

technology tools map onto the SAMR model, for example, how many teachers’ lessons fall onto

the levels of substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition levels. Several survey

questions address inquiries about the SAMR model. There is a distinct relationship between the

teachers’ perspective about educational technology, their actual use and their exposure to

innovation in this field (ISTE, 2008; Vannata & Fordham, 2004; Petko, 2015; Hamilton,

Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016; Vrasidas, 2010; Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011). The

survey also attempted to define this relationship within a specific population and setting.

Design

In order to fully develop narratives of educational technology use within middle and high

school settings, a survey study was conducted. Quantitative data was collected in the form of

18
survey questions which categorized information as it related to teachers’ use of specific

technology tools, the frequency of their use of these tools and the ways that they integrate these

tools in their classrooms. Additionally, survey data was collected to define how the teachers

viewed themselves as it relates to 21st century educational technology use. The survey data also

assessed the ways in which they viewed educational technology as well as their participation in

voluntary school district professional developments. This survey used the design principles and

theory as presented in a Canadian Teachers’ Federation national survey which collected data on

educational technology (Germain, Riel, & McGahey, 2013). Within this study, the researchers

used a mixed methods approach to define teachers’ relationship between technology and

aspirational teaching. The survey also included open-ended questions which collected responses

relating to specific technology tool use and student production through technology. The results of

all of this data was analyzed to determine an answer to the aforementioned research questions.

Pseudonyms are used for the school district and the schools in reporting of the findings.

Participants

In order to assess educational technology use and teachers’ perspectives of specific

educational technology models within a specific setting, teachers at four schools within the

Paradisio Unified School District were selected to be included in this study. Of these four

schools, Hyrule and Oasis are middle, and Bearcat and Redwood are high schools. The middle

schools were selected because they are currently the main feeder schools for the two high

schools included in the study. The two high schools in the study were selected because they are

currently the only two high schools within the Paradisio Unified School District. A total of 96

teachers within the Paradisio Unified School District volunteered to take the anonymous survey.

19
 A total of 27 middle school teachers participated in the survey. 92.2% of these teachers

teach at Hyrule Middle and 3.7% teach at Oasis Middle within the Paradisio Unified School

District. Of these teachers, 48 % taught 6th grade, 48% taught 7th grade, and 51.8% taught 8th

grade. A total of 69 high school teachers participated in the survey. 86.9% of these teachers teach

at Bearcat High and 11.5% teach at Redwood High within the Paradisio Unified School District

Of these teachers, 67.6% taught 9th grade, 67.6% taught 10th grade, 71% taught 11th grade and

67.6% taught 12th grade. 26% of teachers reported teaching English and Language Arts. 16.3%

of teachers reported teaching Math, 15.2% of teachers reported teaching Physical and Life

Science, 13% of teachers reported teaching Special Education, 9.8% of teachers reported

teaching Foreign Language, and 4.3% of teachers reported teaching Art. One teacher reported

teaching Technology and 1 teacher reported teaching CTE Sports Medicine.

The teachers at the school sites had teaching assignments with a variety of student

populations. 69.5% of teachers had students in their classes who have no specialized academic or

language designation, 74.7% of teachers had students in their classes who are classified as

special education, 65.3% of teachers had students in their classes who are English Language

Learners (ELD, including reclassified), and 48% of teachers had students in their classes who are

being taught honors curriculum.

23.2% of teachers had a bachelor’s degree and a teaching credential, 21.1% of teachers

completed some graduate work, 54.7% of teachers had a master’s degree, and 1 teacher reported

having a doctoral degree.

The class sizes of the teachers included 88.4% of teachers who stated they have more

than 25 students in their classes, 5.3% stated they have 10-15 students in their classes, 2.1%

20
stated they have 16-20 students in their classes and 2.1% stated they have less than 10 students in

their classes.

42.1% of the participants have been teaching in the Paradisio Unified School District for

3 or fewer years, 20% have been teaching in the Paradisio Unified School District for 4-9 years,

22.1% have been teaching in the Paradisio Unified School District for 10-19 years and 15.8%

have been teaching in the the Paradisio Unified School District for 20 or more years.

The Paradisio Unified School District provides various educational technology trainings

for the certificated staff in online and face to face sessions. The respondents of the survey

selected each of the trainings they attended and participated in. Table 1 summarizes the

responses for each training attended.

Table 1. Educational Technology Training Attendance

Name of training Percentage of teacher

participation

Google Classroom 61%

Google Forms (Beginning) 47.6%

Google Apps (Beginning) 25.6%

Chromebook in the Classroom (2 session series) 25.6%

Google Slides for More than Just Presentations 22%

Beyond “Just Google It” - Research Skills for Students 19.5%

Doing More with Google Forms 19.5%

Getting Started with Google Sites 19.5%

21
 Screencasting in the Classroom 18.3%

Formative Assessments using Online Tools 17%

Inquiry 1:1 (2-year program) 17%

Google Drawings to Create Customized Classroom 14.6%

Resources
Google Sheets - Beginning/Intermediate 14.6%

Presentation Tools and Strategies 14.6%

Beginning Schoolwires 12.2%

My Big Campus 10%

Setting

This study was conducted within the Paradisio Unified School District in southern

California. The researcher is currently employed and teaches within the Paradisio Unified School

District at one of the traditional high schools. The district currently has eleven elementary

schools, one K-8 school, three middle schools, two traditional high schools and two continuation

or alternative education high schools.

The Demographics of Middle Schools

The Oasis Middle School consisted of 1.9% Black or African American, 0.2% American

Indian or Alaska Native, 3.2% Asian, 2.3% Filipino, 80.6% Hispanic or Latino, 0.4% Native

22
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 11.2% White students. 78.7% of their students are

socioeconomically disadvantaged, 27.7% are English Learners, 15.0% are students with

disabilities and 0.1% are foster youth. The teacher demographic is as follows for this site: 79.6%

White, 10.2% two or more races, 6.1% Black or African American and 4.1% two or more races.

The Hyrule Middle School consisted of 2.5% Black or African American, 0.5%

American Indian or Alaska Native, 6.6% Asian, 22% Filipino, 19.8% Hispanic or Latino, 0.5%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 68.0% White, and 0.0% two or more races. They also

reported that 19.1% of their students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, 4.1% are English

Learners, 10.8% are students with disabilities and 0.1% are foster youth. The teacher

demographic is as follows for this site 93.6% White, 2.6% two or more races, 1.3% Black or

African American, 1.3% Filipino, and 1.3% Other Asian.

The Demographics of High Schools

The Bearcat High School consisted of 2.2% Black or African American, 0.5% American

Indian or Alaska Native, 6.3% Asian, 2.7% Filipino, 40.5% Hispanic or Latino, 0.6% Native

Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 47.1% White, and 0.1% other. They also reported that 36.6% of

their students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, 8.8% are English Learners, and 11.4% are

students with disabilities. The teacher demographic is as follows for this site 85.6% White, 4.5%

two or more races, 2.3% Black or African American, 1.5% Korean, 0.8% Filipino, 0.8%

Chinese, 0.8% White, two or more races, 0.8% Vietnamese, and 0.8% American Indian or

Alaska Native.

The Redwood High School consisted of 2.7% Black or African American, 0.2%

American Indian or Alaska Native, 4.4% Asian, 3.4% Filipino, 51.9% Hispanic or Latino, 0.6%

23
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 36.6% White, and 0.1% other. They also reported that

47.0% of their students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, 7.9% are English Learners, 11.7%

are students with disabilities and 0.4% are foster youth. The teacher demographic is as follows

for this site 95.6% White, 2.2% Black or African American, 1.1% White, two or more races, and

1.1% two or more races.

Instrument

Within the survey, there were nine specific sections. The first section included nine items

which established the background of the participants. The participants were asked specific

background information about their current teaching assignment, for example. the school site at

which they currently teach, their curricular content area, the grades of the students they teach and

the demographics of these students. Additionally, the participants were asked how long they

have been teaching within the Paradisio district as well as the total number of years they have

been teaching.

The second section included ten items which established the types of technology tools the

participants used and the frequency of the use of those tools. The participants were given a list of

technology tools to choose from which included: basic e-readers, video game devices, handheld

devices, tablets, projector, interactive whiteboard and laptop/desktop computers as options. The

first item used a 5-point frequency scale (everyday, couple of times a week, a few times a month,

a few times a year and never) which determined which of these technology tools they used

frequently. The remaining items within this section asked the participants to define the reasons

why they use particular technology tools. They were given the following options of which they

could identify as many as applied to their practice “I don’t use (technology tool) in my class,” “to

24
teach my students new material,” “to practice material already learned,” “to conduct formative

assessments,” “to conduct summative assessments,” “to motivate/reward my students,” “to give

students a break activity,” “to pass students’ time between assignments,” and “to connect my

students with one another.”

The third section asked participants to assess their own perception of themselves as it

relates to educational technology. The participants’ perception of themselves was measured on a

five-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Somewhat Agree, 4=Disagree and

5=Strongly Disagree). They were asked if they viewed themselves as a “learner,” “leader,”

“collaborator,” “facilitator,” or “designer” using this scale.

The fourth section asked participants what they feel are barriers to using technology in

their classroom. They were asked to identify as many options that applied to their own

perspective about this topic. They were given “Access to technology tools in the classroom/our

school,” “Students’ access to technology at home,” “Lack of professional development

opportunities around technology in the school/district,” “Lack of peer support and collaboration

around technology,” “Lack of time to make plans for the incorporation of technology into the

classroom” and “Inadequate technical infrastructure and support” as options. Additionally,

participants could write in their own response.

The fifth section included one survey item. This survey item asked the participants to

identify all educational technology based professional development trainings they have attended

while teaching in the school district. The survey provided the following options to choose from:

“Inquiry 1:1 (2-year program),” “Chromebooks in the Classroom (2 session series),” “Google

Classroom Google Forms,” “Beginning Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality in the Classroom,”

“Advanced Google Calendar “Beyond ‘Just Google It’ - Research Skills for Students,” “Doing

25
More with Google Forms,” “Formative Assessment Using Online Tools,” “Getting Started with

Google Sites,” “Google Drawings to Create Customized Classroom Resources,” “Google

Geography Tools Across the Curriculum,” “Google Sheets - Beginning/Intermediate,” “Google

Slides for More Than Presentations,” “iPads and Google Apps,” “Multimedia Text Sets and

HyperDocs,” “Presentation Tools and Strategies,” “Screencasting and Video in the Classroom,

“Writing & Digital Storytelling Across the Curriculum,” “My Big Campus SMUSD

Cloud/Beginning Google Apps “Beginning Schoolwires, and “The 1 iPad Classroom.”

Participants were also given the option to write in a training they attended that was not listed

within this survey item.

The sixth section contained one item. This item asked the participants to assess their

comfort level when using technology in the classroom using one the following statements “very

comfortable,” “comfortable,” “neither comfortable nor uncomfortable,” “uncomfortable” or

“very uncomfortable.” The seventh section of the survey assessed the participants beliefs about

educational technology. This section included a 5-point Likert scale item (1=Strongly Agree,

2=Agree, 3=Somewhat Agree, 4=Disagree and 5=Strongly Disagree). In order to assess the

participants feelings as it relates to the SAMR model the participants were given the following

four statements: “Educational technology should be used as a direct substitution for traditional

methods of teaching and learning,” “Educational technology should be used to support students

in creating something original or new,” “Educational technology creates opportunities for student

collaboration that was not possible with traditional methods of teaching and learning” and “The

same lessons could still be taught without the use of educational technology.”

Within this same section, the participants were given the following five statements to

consider their own pedagogical beliefs pertaining to educational technology: “Educational

26
technology should only be used to accomplish classroom management tasks,” “Educational

technology offers tools that fundamentally transforms teaching and learning,” “Educational

technology increases student understanding of the learning outcomes intended for the class(es),”

“The use of educational technology takes time away from teaching the curriculum for the content

area,” and “Educational technology engages students more deeply with the curriculum.”

There was one survey item in section eight. This survey item assessed the ways in which

the participants use technology. This item used a six-point frequency chart (1=Never, 2=A few

times a year, 3= few times a month, 4=Once a week, 5=A few times a week, 6=Everyday). This

item assessed the ways in which the participants facilitate the use of technology through four

statements beginning “How often do your students…” The statements included in this item were:

“...spend using technology to perform the same tasks that were usually done before the

technology? (e.g. using word documents rather than paper),” “...use technology to gather

information? (e.g. doing an online search about a topic),” “...use technology to synthesize

information? (e.g. putting together a PowerPoint presentation to present their research findings),”

and “... use technology to produce something to illustrate their learning?” This item continued to

assess the ways in which the participants facilitate the use of technology with three statements

beginning “How often do you…” These statements are “...use technology for the purposes of

providing direct instruction to students? (e.g. using PowerPoint to present a topic),” “...use

technology for the purposes of classroom management? (e.g. using an app to take attendance),”

and “...allow students to select the educational technology tool that they will use?” The last

section of the survey included the following five open-ended questions: (1) Please describe a

lesson or activity where students used technology to learn content, (2) Please describe a lesson or

activity where students used technology to create something, (3) Describe a lesson or activity

27
where your students exceeded your expectations using a technology tool, (4) When you use

educational technology in the classroom, what tools do you use for student collaboration? (5)

When you use educational technology in the classroom, what tools do you use to assess student

learning?

Procedures

Upon approval from the Institutional Review Board was received for the research study,

the researcher sent an e-mail to the school principals explaining the research study along with a

link to the online survey. The first page of the survey explained the participants the purpose of

the study, the methodology as well as the potential impact for the district for potential

participants. They were also informed that their responses will be anonymous, and their

participation is completely voluntary. The researcher asked the school principals to forward the

link to the online survey to the teachers. Google Form was used to create the online survey. The

participants were given thirty days to complete the survey. As the participants completed the

survey, their responses were recorded to Google Sheets under the researcher’s personal Google

Drive account.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the survey questions. Specifically, percentages

of different response categories are reported. For the open-ended survey questions, the researcher

identified the themes emerged from participants’ responses and categorized participants’

responses accordingly.

28
 Summary of the Chapter

The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between teachers’ use of

technology tools and their pedagogical principles pertaining to educational technology. A thirty-

question survey was administered to teachers within the Paradisio school district. The questions

within the survey aimed to collect the demographic information of the teachers, determine which

technology tools teachers use in the classroom, define the ways in which the teachers use specific

educational technology tools, ascertain how the teachers view themselves as it related to

technology use, analyze the types of work the students produce using educational technology,

and determine the teachers’ pedagogical views of educational technology; specifically how they

perceive the SAMR model. The results and findings are presented in the following chapter.

29
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to understand teachers’ use of educational technology as it

related to their students’ use of specific tools, their perception of their role, their pedagogical

principles regarding educational technology and the ways in which the teachers facilitate use of

the educational technology tools in their individual classrooms.

Technology Use in the Classroom

On the survey, teachers were asked their use of basic e-reader devices, video game

devices, handheld devices, tablets, projector, interactive whiteboard, and laptop or desktop

computers. The most frequently used device was a projector with all teachers who took the

survey reported that they use it. This was followed by 94.7% of teachers reporting that they used

laptop or desktop computers, 69.9% of teachers reported that they used handheld devices, and

57% of teachers reported that they used interactive whiteboard. The least frequency used devices

were tablets (12%), video game devices (11.8%), and basic e-readers (8.7%) (n=90). Table 2

summarizes how often teachers used each technology device.

Table 2. Percentages of Frequency of Technology Device Use in the Classroom

Technology Device n Everyday Couple A few A few

of times times a times a
a week month year

30
 Projector 90 93.7% 1.0% 3.1% 1.0%

Laptop/Desktop 89 78.1% 10.4% 7.2% 2.0%

Computer

Handheld Devices 72 14.5% 23.9% 30.2% 9.3%

Interactive Whiteboard 53 35.4% 7.2% 7.2% 9.3%

Tablet 15 5.2% 3.1% 5.2% 3.1%

Video Game Devices 9 - - 7.2% 5.2%

Basic E-Reader Device 6 1.1% 1.1% 3.1% 4.1%

Reasons for Using Technology Devices

All teachers who used projectors in the classroom reported that they use this technology

to teach their students new material. 83.9% of them reported that they use this technology tool to

practice material already learned by students, 53.8% reported using the tool to conduct formal

assessment, 37.6% reported using the tool to motivate or reward their students, 37.6% reported

connecting students with each other, 31.2% reported using the tool to conduct summative

assessment, 28% reported using the tool to give students a break activity, and 16.1% reported

using the tool to pass students time between assignments.

31
 Among those who used laptop or desktop computers, 87.2% of teachers reported that

they use this technology to teach their students new material, 86.2% used this technology to

practice material already learned, 69.1% used this technology to conduct formal assessment,

60.6% used this technology to conduct summative assessment, 53.2% used this technology to

connect students with each other, 38.3% used this technology to motivate or reward their

students, 28.7% used this technology to give students a break activity, and 19.1% used this

technology to pass students time between assignments.

Of the teachers who used handheld devices, 44.1% reported that they used this

technology to practice material already learned, 33.3% reported they use this technology to

conduct formal assessments, 32.3% reported they used this technology to motivate/reward their

students, 26.9% reported they used this technology to teach their students new material, 27.7%

reported that they used this technology to connect students with each other, 24.7% reported that

they used this technology to give their students a break activity, 6.5% reported that they used this

technology to conduct summative assessments, 3.2% reported that they used this technology to

pass students time between assignments.

Among those who used an interactive whiteboard, 54.8% reported that they use this

technology to teach my students new material, 48.4% reported that they use this technology to

practice material already learned, 23.7% reported that they use this technology to conduct formal

assessment, 16.1% reported that they use this technology to motivate or reward their students,

14% reported that they use this technology to give students a break activity, 11.8% reported that

they use this technology to conduct summative assessments, 11.8% reported that they use this

technology to connect students with each other, 3.2% reported that use this technology to pass

students time between assignments.

32
 Among those who used tablets, 10.9% reported that they use this technology to practice

material already learned, 7.6% reported that they use this technology to teach their students new

material, 6.5% reported that they used this technology to give the students a break activity, 5.4%

reported that they used this technology to conduct formal assessments, 5.4% reported that they

used this technology to motivate or reward their students, 2.2% reported that they used this

technology to conduct summative assessments, 2.2% reported that they used this technology to

connect students with each other, 1.1% reported that they used this technology to pass students

time between assignments.

Of the teachers who used video game devices, 9.7% reported that they use this

technology to practice material already learned, 6.5% reported that they use this technology to

connect students with each other, 6.5% reported that they use this technology to motivate or

reward their students, 5.4% reported that they use this technology to conduct formal assessments,

4.3% reported that they use this technology to teach my students new material, 3.2% reported

that they use this technology to give students a break activity, 1.1% reported that they use this

technology to conduct summative assessments 1.1%, 1.1% reported that they use this technology

to pass students time between assignments 1.1%.

Different Ways Teachers Integrate Technology in the Classroom

75% of teachers reported that they integrate technology in order for students to read and

review online articles, 71.5% of teachers reported that they integrate technology so that their

students can engage in interactive games or activities, 68.5% reported that they integrate

technology in order to facilitate the creation of online video content, 81.5% reported that they

integrate technology in order to facilitate the creation and showcase of online presentations,

33
20.7% reported that they integrate technology for video production purposes, 19.6% reported

that they integrate technology so that they and their students can connect on social media, and

13% reported that they integrate technology to facilitate student blogging (n=92). Table 3

summarizes how teachers integrate technology in the classroom by middle and high school.

Table 3. Ways in Which Teachers Integrate Technology in their Classrooms by Grade Level

Grade n online interactive social blogging video online online

Level articles games or media production presentation video
activities content

High 66 62.1% 74.2% 18.1% 12.1% 13.6% 69.6% 60.6%

School

Middle 27 74% 70.3% 18.5% 11.1% 29.6% 92.5% 55.5%

School

Teachers’ Beliefs and Perceptions around Technology

63.7% of the teachers reported that they wished they had more technology in the

classroom, 28.7% of teachers reported that their students want more technology in the classroom,

and only 7.5% of teachers reported that they wish they had less technology in their classroom.

Teachers were also asked about their perception of themselves as it relates to educational

technology. Teachers reported how much they see themselves as a learner, leader, collaborator,

facilitator, and designer. Table 4 summarizes teachers’ responses with respect to how they see

themselves regarding educational technology.

34
Table 4. Teachers’ Perceptions of Themselves Regarding Educational Technology

Teachers’ Perceptions of Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly

Themselves Agree Agree Disagree

Learner 19.3% 47.3% 23.6% 11.8% -

Leader 6.4% 24.7% 32.2% 30.1% 7.5%

Collaborator 23.6% 51.6% 22.5% 3.2% -

Facilitator 12.9% 41.9% 27.9% 11.8% 6.4%

Designer 5.3% 12.9% 27.9% 26.8% 27.9%

39.8% of teachers reported that they felt very comfortable with technology. 39.8% of

teachers reported that they felt comfortable with technology, 16.1% reported that they felt neither

comfortable nor uncomfortable, 3.2% reported that they felt uncomfortable and 1.1% felt very

uncomfortable (n=93).

Barriers to Technology Use in the Classroom

65.2% of teachers reported that they believe lack of time to make plans for the integration

of technology into the classroom is a barrier. 53.3% reported that students’ access at home is a

barrier. 46.7% of teachers reported that they believe access to technology tools in their classroom

or our school is a barrier. 37% of teachers reported that they believe lack of professional

development opportunities around technology in the school or district is a barrier. 23.9% of

teachers reported that they believe lack of peer support and collaboration around technology is a

35
barrier. Finally, 22.8% of teachers reported that they believe inadequate technical infrastructure

and support is a barrier.

Where Do Teachers Fit in the SAMR Model

The SAMR model is defined by the four specific categories of engagement with

technology: (1) substitution, (2) augmentation, (3) modification and (4) redefinition. The

different stages are characterized by the tasks the student completes while using technology

tools. Technology use in the classroom at the substitution and augmentation stages are

characterized by minor impacts the technology provides within the lesson. However, the

modification and redefinition stages signify a shift in this model from lesson enhancement to

lesson transformation (Puentedura, 2018, January 15).

Enhancement: Substitution and Augmentation

Teachers’ Beliefs. Only 13.5% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that educational

technology should be used as a direct substitution for traditional methods of teaching and

learning (n = 96). Similarly, only 5.2% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that educational

technology should only be used to accomplish classroom management tasks. 20.8% of teachers

agreed or strongly agreed that the same lessons could still be taught without the use of

educational technology. Only 4.1% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the use of

educational technology takes time away from teaching the curriculum for the content area. It is

important to note that the highest somewhat agree response rate was for the same lessons could

still be taught without the use of educational technology with 42.7%. This suggests that while

36
teachers believe do not necessarily see educational technology as a substitution and

augmentation, they still perceive educational technology as not as integral to instruction.

Teachers’ Behaviors. 17.7% of teachers reported that students spend using technology to

perform the same tasks that were usually done before the technology every day (n=96). 63.5% of

teachers reported that they use educational technology for classroom management every day.

46.8% of teachers reported that they use educational technology for the purposes of providing

direct instruction to students every day. Although teachers do not perceive educational

technology as a substitution or augmentation, they use educational technology in these ways.

Said differently, there is a discrepancy between what teachers believe and what they do in the

classroom with educational technology.

Transformation: Modification and Redefinition

Teachers’ Beliefs. 85.4% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that educational

technology should be used to support students in creating something original or new (n=96).

75% of teachers also agreed or strongly agreed that educational technology offers tools that

fundamentally transforms teaching and learning. 58.3% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed

that educational technology increases student understanding of the learning outcomes intended

for the class. 57.2% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that educational technology engages

students more deeply with curriculum. 69.7% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that

educational technology creates opportunities for student collaboration that was not possible with

traditional methods of teaching and learning. These findings suggest that the beliefs of teachers

37
who participated in this study fall into modification and redefinition categories in the SAMR

model.

Teachers’ Behaviors. Only 10.4% of teachers use technology for their students to gather

information every day (n=96). 5.2% of teachers reported that their students use technology to

synthesize information. 8.3% of teachers reported that their students use technology to produce

something to illustrate their learning every day. 25% of teachers reported that their students use

technology to produce to illustrate their learning a few times a week. Finally, only 7.2% of

teachers reported that they allow their students to select the educational technology tool they will

use every day. 33.3% of teachers reported that they allow their students to select the educational

technology tool they will use a few times a year. These findings suggest that while teachers’

beliefs fall into modification and redefinition categories in the SAMR model, teachers engage in

behaviors that fall into these categories less frequently compared to behaviors that fall into

substitution and augmentation. Again, there is a discrepancy between what teachers’ believe and

what they do in the classroom with educational technology.

Results from Open-Ended Survey Questions

Many different and varying tools and strategies were shared in the responses to the five

open-ended questions. The open-ended questions asked the teachers to reflect upon specific

lessons or activities in which: the students used technology to learn content, the students used

technology to create something, and in which the teacher facilitated the use of technology in

order for students collaborate with their peers and the teacher uses technology in order to assess

38
student learning. An analysis of the responses revealed themes related to the SAMR model that

will be discussed in this section.

Through the open-ended questions the findings illustrate that the majority of the teachers

achieve the “substitution” stage of the SAMR model through lesson design devoted to students

collaborating with their peers as well as the assessment of student learning. The majority of

teachers stated that they used Google G-Suite applications including Google Docs, Google

Slides, Google Forms, and Google Classroom in order to facilitate collaboration. Most of these

teachers had specific prompts and avenues for which to use the G-suite applications. Almost all

of these teachers reported that they used the Google G-Suite applications in order to facilitate

electronic conversations in order to provide feedback or other commentary. Even though the

teacher reported that they used technology for collaboration, the lessons the teachers described

lesson in which the G-Suite applications were used in a substitutive manner. Additionally,

teachers reported that they use tools such as Google Forms, Quizizz, Illuminate and Kahoot! in

order to provide summative assessments. Teachers also reported using Google Classroom in

order to collect assignments to be graded in conjunction with a rubric. Although these tools

require the use of technology, they are merely substitutive methods for traditional pen and paper

quizzes or tests.

Through the open-ended questions the findings illustrate that teachers achieve the

“augmentation” and “modification” stages of the SAMR model through lesson design devoted to

students learning curricular content. When teachers responded to the open-ended question about

students learning content, some illustrated lessons in which the achieved the “modification” level

of the SAMR model while their students engaged with interactive web-based content including

inquiry-based instruction, WebQuest, Digital Breakout Edu, as well as simulations devoted to

39
Math and Science comprehension. Others used Google My Maps to learn about the Civil War

and engage with the creation of a digital map during the lesson. Some teachers reported using

such web-based tools as EdPuzzle, Desmos, Kahoot!, Quizlet Live and PowToon; these tools and

lessons achieved the “augmentation” stage of the SAMR model.

There were few teachers who reported using web-based tools such as Quizlet Live and

Thinglink in order to facilitate collaboration. In these few cases, the “augmentation” stage was

achieved through lessons devoted to student collaboration. These particular teachers described

lessons in which students developed their learning about a curricular topic, adding their thoughts

as well as media to the individual projects.

Through the open-ended questions the findings illustrate that only teachers who achieved

the “redefinition” stage of the SAMR model did so through lesson design devoted to students

creating products or projects. Some teachers facilitated lessons in which students created

projects or products to illustrate their learning that are classified within the “redefinition” stage

of the SAMR model including student created Google My Maps in order to illustrate learning

about the Civil War, student created stop-motion animation using the app Stop Motion Studio to

illustrate the properties of mitosis and student created wave calculators to show the motion of a

wave based on base conditions. Other teachers used web-based tools such as Thing Link and

Adobe Spark within their lessons which achieved the “redefinition” level of the SAMR model.

Even though the range of tool and technique ranged between all of the stages of the

SAMR model, all respondents illustrated their comfort with designing a lesson using a

technology tool which are tied to the learning goals of the class. The connection between

technology and curricular goals is essential (Lacey 2014).

40
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

Educators who currently teach in secondary school settings must incorporate, facilitate

and engage their students with educational technology so that these students can keep up with the

21st century demands (Greifner, 2006; Goode, 2010; Reinhart, Thomas & Toriskie, 2011). These

demands can be challenging for many teachers. Time commitment, curricular demands and

environmental constraints tend to impede progress for some educators (Speak Up Survey, 2017;

Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck 2001; Reinhart, Thomas E., & Toriskie 2011; Vrasidas, 2010). The

teachers’ confidence level and self-perception correlate with the type of educational technology

use (DeGennaro & Brown 2009; Goode, 2010; Zhao, 2014). The primary goal of this study was

to determine how teachers in the Paradisio Unified School District currently facilitate the use of

educational technology in their classrooms, how they perceive themselves as facilitators of

educational technology and to determine how their pedagogical principles relate to educational

technology. It was essential to learn how teachers are using the technology they are provided in

order to identify which teachers are using technology in order to promote critical thinking, high-

order thinking skills, and analyze the factors that contribute to this use.

Summary of Findings

Overall, the teachers frequently use the same or similar technology tools with their

students. The technology tools that teachers tend to use include projectors and laptop/desktop

computers. They tend to rarely use video game devices, basic e- reader devices and tablets.

Teachers are facilitating the use of most technology tools in order for the students to practice

41
material already learned. However, teachers use interactive whiteboards, projectors and laptops

or desktop computers in order to teach new material at a very high frequency.

When teachers integrate technology in their classrooms they reported that they mainly

integrate technology in order to facilitate the creation and showcase of online presentations, in

order to facilitate the creation of online video content, in order for students to read and review

online articles and so that their students can engage in interactive games or activities. They rarely

integrate technology in order to have their students connect on social media or to engage in

blogging. These findings are consistent at each of the school sites.

Research conducted found that a very significant barrier of technology integration use is

the lack of time to make plans for the integration of technology into the classroom (Vrasidas,

2010; Cuban et al., 2001). Findings within this study supported this idea because the majority of

the teachers believed that lack of time was the most significant barrier to technology integration.

Additionally, most teachers believe that access to technology at their school site and students’

access to technology at home are additional barriers.

Confidence levels are very significant as it relates to technology integration in the

classroom. Even though almost all of the teacher felt “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with

using technology in the classroom, more than half viewed themselves as a “learner” in relation to

technology. This finding was consistent among all school sites. The majority of teachers viewed

themselves as a “collaborator” and half of the teachers viewed themselves as a “facilitator.” A

minority of teachers viewed themselves as a “designer” in relation to technology integration. At

most of the school sites the teachers viewed themselves the same way as outlined above.

42
 Teachers’ pedagogical views are essential to consider when analyzing the types of

implementation of educational technology in the classroom (Banister & Fischer, 2010; Herold,

2016; Kay, Knaack, & Petrarca, 2009; Petko, 2015; Vannata, & Fordham, 2004). At all of the

school sites, the majority of the teachers disagreed with the ideas that “educational technology

should be used as a direct substitution for traditional methods of teaching and learning” and the

idea that “educational technology should only be used to accomplish classroom management

tasks.” The majority of the teachers agreed with the ideas that “educational technology should be

used to support students in creating something original or new” as well as the idea that

“educational technology offers tools that fundamentally transforms teaching and learning.”

Additionally, when asked “How often do your students spend using technology to

perform the same tasks that were usually done before the technology?” respondents rarely

responded, if at all, that their students “never” spend time using technology in this way or do so

“a few times a year.” Very often the respondents stated that their students spend time using

technology this way “every day,” “a few times a week,” and “once a week.”

Given the findings, teachers believe that technology increases student understanding of

the learning outcomes intended for the class, the technology engages more deeply, it increases

collaboration, and can transform fundamental learning. However, they seem unsure if that the

lessons they are using with educational technology can be duplicated without technology. The

teachers know that technology can be innovative, but they are unsure if what they are doing is

the highest level. Additionally, the teachers admit that their students are usually using technology

as merely substitution for traditional methods of instruction.

43
 Educational Implications

The finding of this study illustrates the views and practices of many teachers at four

school sites within the Paradisio unified district related to educational technology use in the

classroom. Opportunities for growth about technology use were illustrated through the data. The

implications of this study is optimistic for potential shifts in educational technology preparation,

shifts in the evolution of teachers’ view of themselves related to technology use and shifts in the

levels of educational technology use. The responses within this study demonstrate with the

literature continues to acknowledge; educators feel that the lack of time to make plans for the

incorporation of technology in the classroom is the main barrier for technology integration

(Speak Up Survey, 2017; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck 2001; Reinhart, Thomas E., & Toriskie

2011; Vrasidas, 2010). However, teachers in this study are willing to attend or engage in online

professional developments related to education technology use in the classroom. Additionally,

teachers in this study disagree with this idea that technology should be used as a direct

substitution. Instead, they believe that educational technology should be used in order for

students to create something new to represent their learning. Also, few teachers in this study

view themselves as “designers” or “leaders” when asked about their view of themselves related

to educational technology.

This finding is supported by the participants in the open-ended question portion of the

survey. While 96 teachers took the survey, between 65 and 80 teachers responded to questions

devoted to specific lesson design and use of technology tools. One can assert that the teachers

who lack confidence with technology did not respond to these questions because they are

reluctant to make a inaccurate claim about technology use in their classroom.

44
 Their responses demonstrate a willingness to engage in professional developments which

would allow for continual growth related to pedagogy and perspective of themselves. Their

responses also illustrate that they value the educational technology practices that allow students

to use technology in transformative ways; many just don’t which practices would fit their

curriculum. However, their responses also indicate that they require the time to design,

collaborate and lead each other so that these shifts can occur.

Significant key findings illuminated the study while analyzing the open-ended responses.

The SAMR model was used to analyze these responses. The study shows that teachers are

achieving the transformative stages of the SAMR model primarily within lessons devoted to

student creation and student learning. While teachers focused on student collaboration and

student assessment their lessons resided in the enhancement stages of the SAMR model.

Primarily student assessment centered around educational technology which acted a substitution

for traditional methods.

Through this study, it is the recommendation that the officials within the Paradiso school

district should devote more time within the school calendar to educational technology lesson

design for all teachers. Additionally, a program should be established at all school sites in order

for teachers to engage in collaboration and peer to peer coaching so that all teachers can shift

their educational technology driven lessons from enhancement to transformation.

Limitations and Future Research

Within this study there were several limitations. First, the data analyzed was obtained

from three sites even though the survey was sent out to four school sites. There were more

responses from the two high schools within the district. As a result, the middle school teachers’

45
experience may not have been well represented. In addition, the ways in which the survey was

distributed by the school-site principal varied. Even though the survey was distributed through

district email, the message was conveyed differently between sites. Some principals devoted an

email entirely to the introduction and endorsement of the survey while others included it solely

in a blurb within a weekly newsletter. This variation may have had an impact on the responses.

There was not a pre-survey of the teachers at the beginning of the year, only one during

second semester. A pre-survey and post-survey could have elicited a comparison that may have

illustrated growth in educational technology use. Additionally, a survey distributed to the

students in classes at these sites could have garnered additional observations and generated

claims about perceptions of educational technology use.

46
 References

Arencibia, D. E. (2013). The effects of merging technology and thinking skills in the classroom.

Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University.

Attewell, P., & Battle, J., (1999). Home computers and school performance. The Information

Society: An International Journal, 15(1), 1-10.

Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74, 252-259.

Banister, S., & Fischer, J. (2010). Overcoming the digital divide: The story of an urban middle

school. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 23(2), 2-9.

Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s not: Children’s access and use of computer

technology. The Future of Children, 10(2). 44-75.

Blackwell, C., Lauricella, A., & Wartella, E. (2014). Factors influencing digital technology use

in early childhood education. Computers & Education, 77, 82-90.

Bovee, C., Voogt, J., & Meelissen, M. (2007). Computer attitudes of primary and secondary

students in South Africa. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1762-1776.

California Common Core State Standards: English Language Arts and Literacy in

History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (2013). Retrieved from

https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/finalelaccssstandards.pdf

Chen, C. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology

integration? Journal of Educational Research, 102(1) 65-75.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in

high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational

Research Journal, 38(4) 813-834.

47
DeGennaro, D., & Brown, T. (2009). Youth voices: Connections between history, enacted

culture and identity in a digital divide initiative. Cultural Studies of Science Education,

4(1), 13- 39.

DeWitt, S.W. (2007). Dividing the digital divide: instructional use of computers in social

science. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2) 277-304.

Germain, B., Riel, R., & McGahey, B. (2013). Teachers’ Views on the Relationship Between

Technology and Aspirational Teaching: Findings from a CTF National Survey. Canadian

Teachers’ Federation, 1-17.

Goode, J. (2010). The digital identity divide: how technology knowledge impacts college

students. News Media & Society, 12(3), 497-513.

Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers' use of educational technology in U.S.

public schools: 2009. first look. (NCES 2010-040) National Center for Education

Statistics. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509514.pdf

Greifner, L. (2006). 21st-century skills. Education Week, 25(30), 14.

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution

augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and

suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441.

Halverson, E. (2009). Shifting learning goals: From competent tool use to participatory media

spaces in the emergent design process. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(1), 67-

76.

Herold, B. (2016). What it takes to move from ‘passive’ to ‘active’ tech use in K-12

schools. Education Digest, 82(2), 33.

Hesseldahl, A. (2008). Bringing broadband to the urban poor. Bloomburg BusinessWeek.

48
ISTE Standards for Teachers. (2008). Retrieved from

http://www.iste.org/standards/standards/standards-for-teachers

Krauss, J. (2012) More than Words Can Say Infographics. Learning and Leading with

Technology, 39(5), 10-14.

Lacy, M. R. (2016). Analyzing the impact of a 1: 1 initiative on student learning outcomes: a

focus on low socioeconomic students in the high school setting (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Missouri--Columbia).

Livingstone, S. (2007). Strategies of parental regulation in the media-rich home. Computers in

Human Behavior, 23(2), 920-941.

Maslin, J., & Nelson, M. (2002). Peering into the future: Students using technology to create

literacy projects. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 628-631.

Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011. NCES 2012-

001. National Center for Education Statistics.

Oher, J. (2014). Beyond the gallery wall. Learning and Leading with Technology, 41(6).

Pearson. (n.d.). Frequency of mobile device usage for school work according to students in the

United States as of March 2015, by type. In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved July

12, 2016, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/374331/mobile-device-usage-

schoolwork-frequency/

Peterson, L. & Scharber, C. (2017). Supporting a 1:1 program with a student technology team.

The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(5),396-408.

Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in

classroom: Sharpening the focus of the “will, skill, tool” model and integrating teachers’

constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1351-1359.

49
Project Tomorrow (2017). Trends in digital learning: Building teachers’ capacity and

competency to create new learning experiences for students. Retrieved from

http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/speak-up-2016-trends-digital-learning-june-2017.html

Puentedura, R. (2018, January 15). SAMR and the EdTech Quintet: The Context for Technical

Education [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/blog/archives/401

Reinhart, J., Thomas E., and Toriskie, J. M. (2011). K-12 teachers: Technology use and the

second level digital divide. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3), 181-201.

Ritzhaupt, A., Liu, F., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. (2013). Differences in student information and

communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, and

gender: Evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of Research on

Technology Education, 45(4). 291-307.

Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for

evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), 15.

Staker H., & Horn M. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved

from https://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/04/Classifying -K-

12-blended-learning.pdf

Thieman, G., & Cevallos, T. (2017). Promoting educational opportunities and achievement

through 1:1 iPads. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology,

34(5). 409-427.

Thompson, G. (2014). 1-to-1+BYOD+PD = Success. THE Journal (Technological Horizons

In Education), 41(8), 13.

Tozzo, W. C. (2011). Factors that promote and deter mathematics teachers' use of technology.

(Doctoral dissertation Teachers College, Columbia University).

50
Valdez, J. & Duran, R. (2007). Redefining the digital divide: beyond access to computers and the

Internet. High School Journal, 90(3) 31-44.

Vannata, R. & Fordham, N. (2004) Teacher dispositions and predictors of classroom use.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253-271.

Verkiri, I. (2010). Socioeconomic difference in elementary students’ ICT beliefs and

out-of-school experiences. Computers and Education, 54(4), 941-950.

Vrasidas, C. (2010, April). Why don't teachers adopt technology? eLearn Magazine, 4(7).

Vryzas, K. & Tsitouridou, M. (2002). The home computer in children’s everyday life: The case

of Greece. Journal of Educational Media, 27(1-2), 9-17.

Warschauer, M., (2007). A teacher’s place in the digital divide. National Society for the Study of

Educational Annual Yearbook, 106(2), 147-166.

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Guide - Career and Technical Education Definitions. (2009).

Mississippi State University, Research and Curriculum Unit. Retrieved from

http://www.aps.edu/re/documents/resources/Webbs_DOK_Guide.pdf

Zhao, Yong (2015). A word at risk: An imperative for a paradigm shift to cultivate 21st

century learners. Society, 52(2), 129-135.

51