MIXED METHOD STUDY: EXPLORING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN K-12 CLASSROOMS by Tonya R.

Laliberte A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Educational Leadership

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX July 2009

UMI Number: 3393486

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3393486 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

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

© 2009 by Tonya R. Laliberte ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Texas completed the questionnaire. Administrators should not overlook the teacher leaders within a building in its effort to improve student learning and achievement. Data were analyzed using triangulation of holistic. . The study also examined what techniques and methods technologically proficient teachers use for active engagement among students. middle. Additionally. Using technology in the classroom is a method used to make the shift from traditional methods of instruction to more constructive-compatible instruction. data illustrated that teachers studied are in need of additional resources and professional development for effective and seamless integration of instructional technology into the curriculum to promote active engagement for students. Forty-eight elementary. qualitative. and quantitative data. and examined the barriers associated with technology integration. Change in educational practices is fundamental to overall student success. Using a mixed questionnaire. This mixed method study was designed to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools for active engagement among students.iv ABSTRACT Successful implementation of educational technology is reliant upon constructivist teaching practices. Methods of learning including technology integration are a relatively new mode of instruction. Teachers who are comfortable using technology are more likely to integrate technology into their curriculum. teachers who see added benefits and higher levels of student engagement are more apt to integrate technology frequently. and high school teachers in Keller. intermediate.

and my three children. Without each of you pushing me through I never would have reached this point. Shannon. I celebrate knowing they are watching over me as I bring this journey to a close. Tristan.v DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my husband. tears shed with me. and sacrifices you made for me I am forever indebted to you. From your pats on the back. Cassie. and Christian. I love you and thank you! I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to Millie Harding and Norma Laliberte. . Although we as a family mourn their loss.

vi .

high academic standards. It was very evident every one of you was willing to help in any way necessary. Ron Myers for their dedication to the process. I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to my friend and cohort member. for her continued support through this process. Without your help and processing on a daily basis this would not have come to fruition. I also appreciate the fact that he never gave up on me. Dr. Berg was there providing an encouraging word. Dr. You always gave me time to write . Shannon Laliberte. I would like to thank my dissertation advisor and mentor. Without my esteemed colleagues. Brenda Curry and Dr.vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost. Lydia Massias. regardless of the difficulties and roadblocks I encountered along the way. for always supporting me and encouraging me to dig my heels in and get the dissertation done. for his continuous persistence in mentally challenging me beyond the realm of possibilities. I would also like to thank my colleagues for their willingness to provide insight to how they use technology in their classroom to engage students. at least in my mind. From deaths in the family to the birth of my third baby. Dr. and constant questioning kept me on my toes and made me justify my thought process. I would like to thank all of my soundboards throughout my campus for allowing me the opportunity to share my experiences with you. Gary Berg. I would like to extend my most sincere thanks and appreciation to my family for providing endless encouragement and support for this lengthy academic journey. there would have been no data to collect. I am also extremely grateful to the other members of my dissertation committee. never letting me quit. His insight. Diane Podlewski. I am also very grateful for my random counterpart. I would like to thank my husband.

I feel confident that each of you sees the true value of education and I know that you understand that you do not have to have a 140 IQ to get here. we enjoyed many evenings of home makeover TV while mom worked. Lastly. To my mom. Cassie. I would never have completed it. To my siblings. Rodney. in-laws. may this be an example to you as envision your future plans and become the secondgeneration doctoral graduate. Tristan. Eric. Misty. answer discussion questions. To my sister. and Crystal for their continuous support. Cassie. and Christian for being my inspiration. Without your assistance and dedication to holding the family together.viii that paper. I am forever indebted to you and I love you. . I think I have made you proud. Beth and Gary Laliberte for always supporting me and treating me like one of your own and expressing your pride throughout this entire process. I want to thank my parents. for your candid spirit and being by my side throughout this entire process. siblings. thank you for the many weeks and weekends that you gave up to come stay with the kids while I worked or attended residency. Without the love and support you provided me through this journey. I would also like to thank my in-laws. Your thoughtfulness and processing moments have never gone unrecognized or unappreciated! I would also like to thank my children. Royce. Although you guys are small…you are mighty! Knowing the completion of this academic milestone has affected us all. know that your presence kept me going when things became extremely difficult. Christian. and friends. this would never have been possible. and constant support and encouragement. while you are really too small to really understand. for being my soundboard when things did not make sense. To my dad. always understanding when mommy had to work. or just catch up. Tristan.

..............29 ......19 Hypotheses.......................................................14 Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................ 25 Teachers as Behaviorists .............................. 22 Teachers as Constructivists .......................................................................................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES ......26 Definition of Terms.......................................................................................................ix TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................27 Assumptions....................................................................... 24 Behaviorism ....................................................................................................11 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 14 Significance of the Study to Leadership ............................................. 16 Overview of the Design Appropriateness ................................................................................................................... 9 Statement of the Problem.........................................................................15 Overview of the Research Method................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 Constructivism .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Theoretical Framework.....................................................................28 Scope and Limitations....................................................................................................................................................................7 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................8 Background of the Problem .........................................13 Significance of the Study .........................................17 Research Questions...

...............73 ............................................................................................38 Constructivism ........................................................................ Skinner’s Contribution to Education.................................36 Behaviorism ......................................................................... 64 Gaps in the Literature.......................................................................................... 30 Summary ...............................................57 Barriers to Technology Integration..................................................................................................................... 35 Theoretical Framework..................................... Research Documents..................... 39 Methods of Technology Integration..........67 Conclusion .......................................................41 Behaviorists................43 Advancements of Educational Technology ......................................................................... Articles......................................................................................................................................................................................................54 Technology Proficient Teachers ......................................................................................... and Journals ................... 68 Summary .........................................................................................................................................................34 Historical Overview ..55 Active Engagement....................53 Impact of Technology Use on Learning..............34 Title Searches.......................................................................50 Alternative Learning Environments ........................................................................................2 Delimitations............. 72 CHAPTER 3: METHOD ........................................................ 32 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................... F.................41 Behaviorist Instructional Practices................................................................................................................................................................... 37 B.............................42 Constructivist Instructional Practices..................................................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................95 Pilot Study.....................................................84 Confidentiality ..................................................................................................89 Pilot Study......................................................... 91 Summary ... 83 Informed Consent....................................................................................................................82 Qualitative Sampling....................................................................86 Data Collection .........85 Geographic Location.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................96 The Study: Technology in the Constructivist Classroom .............94 Research Questions........................................................88 Validity and Reliability........................................ 80 Population ...............................86 Instrumentation ........................................................................................90 Data Analysis .............................................78 Hypotheses..................................................................74 Method ................................... 98 .....81 Sampling Frame ............................................................................98 Position and Years Experience.......83 Quantitative Sampling......................................... 93 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS................................................................................................................ 77 Research Questions....................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Research Method and Design Appropriateness ..................................................................................................................................................87 Survey Instrument Development ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................106 Question 9 Qualitative Analysis...................................................110 Quantitative Analysis ............ 117 Research Question 4.........................................................109 Research Question 2..... 110 Qualitative Analysis ............. 114 Research Question 3...........................................128 Interpretations of the Data Results......................................................................................................................................... 103 Question 10 Qualitative Analysis.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 115 Qualitative Analysis ...................................... 100 Triangulation of the Data ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................99 Data Analysis ..............................................................138 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................115 Quantitative Analysis ....................................................100 Study Findings .................................................................108 Question 9 Quantitative Analysis...131 Conclusions and Interpretations.............................................................................104 Question 10 Quantitative Analysis.................................................................................... 133 Implications for Leadership ......................................................................................................................................................................140 .......................101 Research Question 1................................................................................................................................135 Recommendations...........124 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................4 Missing Data ................................................................................ 122 Summary of Findings.......................................................

........................................................................................................................175 APPENDIX H: LETTER CODING FOR SCHOOLS ...........................................192 APPENDIX L: RESEARCH QUESTION 2 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES ..............................144 APPENDIX A: QUALITATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE—PRIOR TO PILOT STUDY ..................................................... 142 REFERENCES ..204 APPENDIX N: SERVER SECURITY...............................5 Summary ..... 190 APPENDIX K: RESEARCH QUESTION 1 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES ............... 180 APPENDIX J: NOTIFICATION OF PILOT STUDY PARTICIPATION....................................................................................................169 APPENDIX E: PARTICIPATION REQUEST STAFF E-MAIL .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 171 APPENDIX F: NOTIFICATION OF PARTICIPATION............................................................................................................................................................162 APPENDIX C: SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSENT.............167 APPENDIX D: REQUEST TO BUILDING PRINCIPALS FOR PARTICIPATION ...223 ........................................... 173 APPENDIX G: INFORMED CONSENT ................................................................................................................................................. 178 APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE—REVISED AFTER PILOT STUDY..............................................158 APPENDIX B: QUANTITATIVE SURVEY—PRIOR TO PILOT STUDY ...198 APPENDIX M: RESEARCH QUESTION 3 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES .....................................

…96 Table 2.6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.101 Table 3..117 . Most Used Technology Type and Frequency………………………. Constructivist Practices……………………………………………. Web-based Applications Types and Usage Report………………….

..112 Figure 7. Percentage of assignments requiring technology tools at specified grade levels.. .111 Figure 6.7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.………………112 Figure 8.……………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………….97 Figure 2..100 Figure 4.………. Percentage of assignments requiring technology tools.……………………. Number of teachers who use specified tools…………………………………108 Figure 5.…………………………………100 Figure 3..Themes and frequency of technology used at specified grade levels..114 Figure 9..…………………………………...114 . Amount of technology training received. Distribution of participants per school…. Number of computers in classrooms at specified grade level. Number of computers in classrooms...Themes and frequency of technology used...…………………………………….

Changing the way teachers think is the first step to reforming education in a movement from three ring binders to online resources (United States Department of Education. lack of resources. Finally. 2008. significance. Additionally. 2007). followed by a discussion of the purpose. Furthermore. 2005). The research also explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. 2007). The research explored how teachers utilize educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement for students of all ability levels. 2007). Chapter 1 begins with an introduction of the background of the problem and the problem statement. the research explored barriers to technology implementation and specific pedagogical approaches associated with implementation.8 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Technology integration into K-12 classrooms is integral to providing the education needed for the success of current-day students (Watson. 2007). it is important for teachers to know how to use technology as a tool to support the teaching and learning process (Hughes. High-quality professional development is a necessity for successful integration. including a lack of professional development. and nature of the study. The research questions and hypotheses follow. 2008. Teachers who understand the need to integrate technology typically have higher achieving students (Watson). Teachers choose not to integrate technology into their curriculum for a variety of reasons. Hughes. Oblinger & Oblinger. Technology integration in the classroom is one way to begin an educational reform altering the way teachers teach and think. discussion of the . Watson. and can turn reluctant teachers into enthusiastic users of technology in the classroom (Fox. and low comfort level (Fox.

K-12 education is gravely lagging behind postsecondary education in internet usage for teaching purposes (Sturgess. it is a method unfamiliar for many K-12 teachers (Watson). Rentie conducted a study to examine the digital divide and how to narrow the technology gap among low-income and minority students. however.9 theoretical framework is presented. Watson. and results of the study indicated that few teachers use technology daily for instructional purposes (Rentie). The problem is K-12 teachers fail to integrate technology tools into their classrooms (Judson. The researcher of this study has elected to make comparisons between K-6. followed by definition of terms. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) attempted to reform the education strategies aimed at lessening student achievement gaps (United States . limitations. Watson). and communicating with parents (Judson. 2006). One recommendation for further study was to compare upper and lower grades to see if any differences exist in the degrees of technology integration between K-3 and 4-6. Rentie. and 9-12. lesson plan creation. A meaningful learning environment that incorporates technology usage must exist when establishing the curriculum. assumptions. Background of the Problem Researchers confirm that teachers are essential to successfully integrating technology into classrooms (Sturgess. Technology usage has changed education. 2008). Teachers who rely on teacher directed instruction are more resistant to allowing student exploration of concepts using technology (Judson). creation of materials. 2007). 7-8. 2006. Many teachers use existing technologies for purposes such as record-keeping. All respondents agreed that technology enhances learning. and delimitations of this study.

2006. & Byers. Methods of learning in conjunction with integration of educational technology are a relatively new mode of instruction that needs further study to examine the effectiveness on student learning (Askun. Few trends have changed in schools (Watson. 2007). Using technology in the classroom is a method used to make the shift from traditional methods of instruction to more constructive-compatible instruction (Matzen & Edmunds. Sheldon. 2007).10 Department of Education. 2007). teachers need continual support that goes far beyond training and workshops (Fox). Pugh. 2002). In accordance with NCLB. Teachers use technology in ways that are consistent with their current teaching practices (Matzen & Edmunds. 2006). 2007). 2007). To maximize the available tools. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) provides for the inclusion of high-quality professional development (United States Department of Education. Technology research can change the teaching and learning approaches in classrooms and a technology-enriched curriculum may equip 21st century students to become both critical thinkers and leaders (Yazon. For teachers to transform instructional practices and for technology to serve as a channel for change. Watson. 2007). Teachers are less likely to implement technology if it is not already a current practice within their instructional design (Zhao. for teachers to change instructional uses of technology there must be some . technology support must exist (Matzen & Edmunds). 2004). The structural foundation in which students learn reflects the fostering of structural dependence needed (Carpenter. high quality professional development is a necessity to begin acting as a change agent in how teachers teach (Fox). Additionally. 2007). Teachers remain the key ingredient to successful integration of technology into the classroom (Sturgess.

The research explored how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. According to Judson (2006). Shih. (¶ 8) K-12 teachers fail to integrate technology tools into their classrooms to promote active academic engagement (Judson. most studies related to teachers and their use of technology have focused on cataloging computer skills and availability of technology within schools and have reported that the availability has grown substantially. Rentie. the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. However. otherwise. study results indicate that few teachers use technology daily for instructional . The research also explored specific techniques or methods that technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. 2006. 2008). Several studies have examined the method of classroom technology integration (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. Integrating technology into the classroom is likely to be unsuccessful unless there is an understanding of how teacher attitudes and beliefs affect the implementation of tools across disciplines (Pederson. 2000.11 pedagogical connections on how the use of technology will support the curriculum. 2006). & Kashyap. Statement of the Problem Education is an ever-changing field and has had to adapt to meet the changing needs of the students. there is much less research on how frequently and in what manner these technologies are being used. Additionally. While technology enhances learning. 2007). 2006). United States Department of Education. Pederson. 2006. bad pedagogy may become automated (Debevec.

Comparison of upper and lower grades examining if any differences in the degrees of technology integration needs further study (Rentie). Because the research created the survey instrument. To fulfill this purpose. or lack of resources. specific technological implementation barriers link to available resources. influenced the level of integration by technology proficient teachers.12 purposes (Rentie). Twenty technology proficient teachers were invited to participate in the pilot study. interviews were voluntary. however. a mixed method study explored comparisons of upper and lower grade teachers examining if any differences exist in the type and degrees of technology integration. One possible cause contributing to this problem is the availability of technology resources and professional development opportunities. Another possible cause is individual teacher’s instructional methodologies. The research explored how available resources. a pilot study was conducted. This mixed method research study explored how teachers in one suburban school district feeder pattern in north central Texas integrate educational technology tools into the classroom to promote active academic engagement and if teaching practices and methodologies influence willingness to integrate such tools. The study was open to 400 technologically proficient teachers across the feeder pattern for completion of the quantitative section. the mixed method study interviewed 20 technology proficient teachers to complete the qualitative section of the study. Additionally. on each campus. or lack of resources. In its proposed state. Participation of staff members was requested to ensure reliability and validity. . The teachers participating in the study were general education classroom teachers. and each participant had the opportunity to participate in both the qualitative and quantitative sections.

Hunt. a mixed method design increased the validity and accuracy of information (Hunt). Mills. Simon). Using a mixed method approach allowed a deeper analysis of the data (Creswell.. the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. Gay et al. Using both methods allowed the researcher to obtain data from multiple grade levels and teachers at various levels of technology competencies. and available resources. Simon. types of professional development. defined for the purpose of potential influences on dependent variables. 2004. The primary dependent variable was active engagement within the classroom. The mixed method design allowed exploration of themes (Creswell. Gathering qualitative data provided deeper insight than using only a quantitative approach (Creswell. A triangulation mixed method design was used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data simultaneously. years teaching. Gay et al. Moderating variables. & Airasian. race. . age. Triangulation of the data was appropriate for this study in search of themes directly related to integration of educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement across three data points. Simon). Gay. included gender. Hunt. Hunt. The research also explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Finally. Additionally. number of hours of technology integration. The primary independent variable was methods and techniques teachers use to integrate online technology tools into the classroom. 2006) within different school cultures in comparison to one another..13 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this mixed method study was to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. 2007. 2006.

The research explored how technology proficient teachers integrate technology into their curriculum to engage students in the learning process. minimal research currently exists on how often and in what manner technology is used in K-12 classrooms (Judson. thus allowing for differentiated instruction. In the actual study. Significance of the Study There are contradicting ideas regarding educational because there are varying definitions of true educational technology (Januszewski. 1994). Providing the field of education with additional information on why teachers fail to implement online educational technology into their existing curriculum may provide a solid foundation for educational institutions to assist teachers in effective methods of technology integration.14 In the proposed state. this mixed method study interviewed 20 technology proficient teachers to complete the qualitative section of the study. All of the participants were general education classroom teachers in one suburban school district feeder pattern in north central Texas. which may ultimately service students at all levels. Significance of the Study to Leadership The completion of this study may empower educational leaders and classroom teachers to consider new methods of instruction. The existing research discussing how technology tools are used in the learning environment is popular in the business sector and throughout higher education (Bonk & Graham. however. 2006). 2006). With this additional information in the body of knowledge. educational leaders may . only 48 teachers participated. The study was open to 400 technologically proficient teachers across the feeder pattern for completion of the quantitative section.

Additionally. 2006). Approximately half of the teachers had students use the computers to complete drill and practice activities (Judson). 2000).15 develop programs to assist faculty who are experiencing difficulty in the implementation of educational technology tools to promote active engagement for students at all academic levels. Nature of the Study There have been substantial advancements with the available technological infrastructures located in K-12 schools. district. Judson (2006) noted that the most common tasks in many classrooms are using word processing and creating spreadsheets. The research also explored . The mixed method research explored how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. Approximately half of the teachers in public schools who have computers or the internet use the computers for classroom instructional practices (National Center for Education Statistics. there are low integration usages to promote student development (Pederson. however. it is an expectation that teachers will successfully integrate technology into the curriculum. results of this study may influence the future of educational technology integration and implementation from campus to campus across various school districts. the method in which teachers have opted to integrate the technology has not significantly changed (Judson. 2006). The results of this study may assist in the implementation of new programs encouraging the integration of online educational tools in K-12 classrooms promoting active academic engagement at school. With the influx of technology into K-12 classrooms. Research from the United States Department of Education indicated that while the overall availability of technology has grown. and state levels.

defined for the purpose of potential influences on dependent variables. Gay et al. Using a qualitative survey allowed examination of themes associated with one building while comparing the data to the quantitative survey to uncover similarities and differences found within particular schools or grade levels (Creswell. age. 2007. Overview of the Research Method Use of the mixed method design allowed examination of themes in response to the research questions. 2004. Hunt. The primary independent variable was methodologies and techniques teachers use to integrate online technology tools into the classroom. Moderating variables. including gender. Triangulation was appropriate because the research explored themes directly related to integration of educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement (Creswell. The researcher used a triangulation mixed method design to collect both qualitative and quantitative data simultaneously. The use of both methods allowed the researcher to obtain data from multiple grade levels and teachers at various levels of technology competencies. number of . 2006. 2006. Simon). 2006). Hunt. race. Finally. the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. 2004. Simon. Gay et al. Hunt. The primary dependent variables were active engagement and technology integration type within the classroom. Gay. Simon. & Eurasian.16 what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. a mixed method design increased validity and accuracy of information (Hunt). years teaching. 2006). The gathering of qualitative data provided deeper insight versus using only a quantitative approach (Creswell... Mills. Additionally. 2007.

The quantitative design allowed the researcher to “produce results to assess the frequency and magnitude of trends” (Creswell. Hunt. Gay et al. Triangulation of the data was appropriate for this study because the research explored themes directly related to integration of online educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. 559). 2006. Gay et al. Combining the two designs allowed deeper analysis of the data sets (Creswell.. Hunt. 2004. p.. p.17 hours of technology integration. Quantitative research studies allow for researcher-controlled environments under research-controlled conditions (Creswell. Overview of the Design Appropriateness A mixed method design has been selected for this study to allow the researcher an opportunity to collect. types of professional development. The researcher used a triangulation mixed method design to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. or field- . Gay et al. 559). Hunt. 2006). 2007. Simon). and report on both quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell. The mixed method design gave value to both qualitative and quantitative data. 2007. 2006) while “qualitative researchers strive to study things in their naturalistic settings. and available resources. Simon. 2004. 2007.. analyze. Hunt. 2006. Simon. qualitative research is sometimes referred to as naturalistic research. The researcher viewed qualitative and quantitative data equally to gain a deeper understanding of the research problem (Creswell. Simon. 2006). naturalistic inquiry. A quantitative only design would not be appropriate for this study. 2004. Gay et al. 2006.. The qualitative data was collected using open-ended interview questions that “offer[ed] many different perspectives on the study topic and provide[d] a complex picture of the situation” (Creswell.

2007). 2006. Simon. The literature gathered assisted in understanding any gaps and provided direction for further research development (Hunt. The literature in a qualitative study plays a minor role. Hunt. The quantitative design was appropriate to this study because the study examined numerical data (Creswell. 2004. it justifies the research problem (Creswell. 2006).. Simon. 2006). A qualitative design was also appropriate because it allowed deeper examination of the research problem (Creswell. In quantitative research. Gay. p. Mills. the .18 oriented research” (Creswell.. 2006. 2006). Simon). Gathering quantitative data for this mixed method research study allowed examination of data to uncover equally represented themes obtained from the research study (Creswell. Hunt.. For the quantitative phase of the research study. p.. Gay et al. 399). Gay et al. While examining the research problem. p. Simon. A quantitative approach was appropriate because in quantitative research “the investigator studies problems in which trends need to be described or explanations need to be developed for relationships among variables” (Creswell. Simon). 53). The researcher administered semi-structured interviews to 48 teachers in one feeder pattern in one suburban school district in north central Texas. exploration of data sets allowed the researcher an opportunity to learn more from participants due to limited information located within the literature (Creswell. & Airasian. Gay et al. Gay et al. justifies the research problem and creates a need for the direction (purpose statement and research questions or hypotheses) of the study” (Creswell. 2006. The interviews collected confidential data centering on the integration of online technology tools to foster active academic engagement. 50). 2004. “the literature plays a major role.

data were collected and analyzed using a pilot study. the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. Four research questions drove the study. due to a lack of consent forms the research was limited to 48 participants. The research explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. The data were collected using qualitative and quantitative methods.19 researcher administered a structured survey instrument to 48 teachers across the feeder pattern of one school district located in north central Texas. The research explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. tables. it underwent a preliminary exploratory analysis and theme identification. the research study included approximately 400 teachers within the feeder pattern. and figures to summarize the findings. The data is displayed using narratives. As a result. however. Research Questions The purpose of this mixed method study was to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. Initially. the research questions were designed to explore how teachers integrate online technology tools within their classroom. Additionally. Additionally. Once the data were coded. First. the study used a selfcreated interview instrument to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. The data underwent hand coding of the data. The research questions were: Research Question 1: How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use .

In Research Question 1. To provide the school district with further recommendations on how to encourage the use of technology within the classroom. Research Question 2 through 4 allowed the researcher to examine the data from a different angle. the researcher examined how technologically proficient teachers incorporate technology tools to foster the learning environment on a daily or weekly basis. does the application type have on the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? Each of the research questions open for exploration share a linkage to one another. . Examining the effect of the application type in relation to active engagement is important due to the increased importance of all students remaining actively engaged to receive the most from their learning environment. if any. and any effects of technology integration occurred.20 technology for active engagement among students in the K-12 classroom? Technologically proficient teachers are defined as those teachers who know best instructional practices and integrate technology into the classroom one to five times per week. either teacher led or student centered. exploration of specific techniques or methods teachers use or do not use. potential barriers. Research Question 2: What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement? Research Question 3: What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers with technology integration? Research Question 4: What effect.

Ha3: Technologically proficient teachers perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications). Ha2: Technologically proficient teachers use a variety of Web materials. H02: Technologically proficient teachers do not use a variety of Web materials. computer applications. administrative support. and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration. and higher-level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week. H03: Technologically proficient teachers do not perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications). H04: The technology application type. such as blogging and podcasting. The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses are as follows: H01: Technologically proficient teachers do not integrate a variety of computer applications and internet based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project based learning activities. and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration.21 Hypotheses The hypotheses included a null and an alternative hypothesis to determine how teachers integrate technology into the classroom to promote active engagement. Ha1: Technologically proficient teachers integrate a variety of computer applications and internet based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project based learning activities. and higher-level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week. computer applications. administrative support. has no impact on .

develop presentations through a variety of software. this theory has influenced educators across the . First. Second.22 a student’s level of academic engagement. & Hart. It is important to examine each of these hypotheses in relation to how teachers integrate technology into their daily instructional routines. students learn from computers where the computer acts as a tutor. Categorized in this area are drill and practice games and programs (Barnett). Beginning in the 1930s. Constructivist teachers place emphasis on the students and the teacher becomes the facilitator (Correiro. Examination of each hypothesis allowed the researcher and the school district personnel an opportunity to collaborate thus providing more opportunities for teachers to integrate a variety of technologies into the curriculum with fewer barriers. Ha4: The technology application type. The computer presents the information to the student and then the student responds. has an impact on a student’s level of academic engagement. 2008). such as blogging and podcasting. 2007). create and analyze data. 2003). Two methods of how students use computers in schools have been studied (Barnett). Behaviorists believe that a person’s cultural and sub-cultural conditioning molds individual personalities (Barnett. is a focus on learning with computers where the technologies allow students to write. Theoretical Framework Two theoretical models guided this research study: constructivism and behaviorism. Griffin. Constructivism Constructivism is not a new phenomenon or theory in education (Matzen & Edmunds. and conduct research (Barnett).

instruction. number of students. upheld the theory of cognitive constructivism that has two major parts. 2008). another constructivist and cognitivist. factors such as time. 2008). 2002). under Vygotsky theories. Both of these components serve as a cognitive theory of development that describes what children are capable of doing at various stages (Correiro et al. It is important to keep each student on a self-paced learning plan to ensure adequate learning is occurring (Thompson).. Piaget. which include ages and stages (Correiro et al. should allow children to socially interact and construct meaning from their learning (Thompson. and assessment (Brown. 2007). like Vygotsky. in children. and student willingness limit discussion (Brown). 2008). Vygotsky’s theories affect many areas of education including curriculum. Peer assisted learning has been found to have an impact on student attitudes towards learning (Tzuriel & Shamir. Finally.). 1978). Vygotsky. Under constructivism. 2007). In class..23 United States. not the teacher (Correiro et al. Many educators do not provide appropriate learning environments where student discussion is regularly implemented (Anderson. supported the notion that experiences facilitate the creation of schemas. Overall framing of Piaget’s constructivism is . known as mental models. One alternative to foster student learning and discussion is to utilize electronic discussion groups to provide effective learning environments and to promote social learning (Brown). instruction scaffolding should occur to meet individual student needs. Interaction with more capable peers tends to lead to higher achievement in lower level students (Brown. Assessments should consider students’ zone of proximal development and be configured to reach students at their actual development as well as their potential developmental zones. Piaget. the emphasis is on the student. The curriculum design.

Under the constructivist view.). when students can construct their own meaning from their learning it is more relevant and meaningful (Huang. 2006). In education. which is different from other constructivists such as Papert.. The use of hands-on-projects has proven to increase motivation and increase student involvement (Huang). In this environment.). students who are constructivists create their own interpretations. 2008). A constructivist view on teaching and learning is a cause for current educational reform (Palmer. the role of language changes. and apply their new knowledge (Huang). allowing the learner to shape and extend his or her thinking (Correiro et al. however.24 different from other constructivists. whose theory is more clearly associated with students who are learning to learn and constructing meaning through what they are learning (Kretchmar. Teachers as Constructivists A review of the available literature on teachers as constructivists is widespread (Judson. Learning communities grounded in constructivism allow learners immediate knowledge within a social context (Correiro et al. 2005). reflect on their own understanding. 2006). limited research exists regarding how student learning occurs through the empirical theories. The process of constructive learning is active. This supports Vygotsky’s theory of students moving through stages of cognitive development through socially mediated situations (Correiro et al. Constructivist learning is an active process where students make . Therefore. Constructivist learning is not limited to receiving knowledge rather it includes building knowledge (Huang). many reading programs rely on theory. Piaget’s theory is developmental in children through stages and ages. 2008). providing learners opportunities to discover their own concepts (Huang).

Constructivist classrooms include a language-rich environment where the teacher scaffolds instruction. Palmer.. Learning Theories. students complete work independently and individually. Butzin. 2005. worksheets and tests) (Greevy. learning ensues during the transmission and acquisition of knowledge (Summary of Behaviorism). Behaviorism The literature reviewed regarding the behaviorist theory was conclusive with the idea that knowledge exists on its own (Barnett. 2008). 2005. Peake. 2003. 2008). In behaviorist classrooms there is practice and feedback on learning experiences.. Summary of Behaviorism. Huang.. & Murphy. 2006. Briers.25 meaning influenced by social contexts (Palmer. 2005). thus promoting metacognition (Palmer). Constructivism literature supports the notion that the teacher becomes the facilitator and the students become the individuals who gather the new knowledge in depth to fulfill individual needs (Correiro et al. the learning is unstructured. In this theory. 2008). students work to achieve high-level thinking through social interaction and exploration of problems while the teacher acts as the facilitator (Palmer). Greevy. the teacher is continuously assessing students for new needs (Palmer). the teacher facilitates the activities. and assessment is measured in traditional methods (i. objectives are measured. however. Learning occurs through drill and practice and the learner is able to give predicted . In the constructivist classroom. 2005. Learning Theories. The goal of instruction in the constructivist classroom is to have students at a level of independence. Summary of Behaviorism. 2006. Summary of Behaviorism). Correiro et al.e. 2000. Peake et al. Behaviorists believe that learning takes place due to external experiences and that teachers teach and students learn (Greevy.

Summary of Behaviorism). the instruction follows a more traditional approach and pedagogical practices (Behaviorist Theory.26 outcomes (Summary of Behaviorism). Instruction is sequential. There is less emphasis on group work and more emphasis on individualized work and the instruction follows a more traditional approach (Greevy. beginning with lower level and working to higher levels. Many instructional tools and programs currently exist that guide students through particular skills and concepts previously or recently taught within the classroom (Cornell. regardless of student ability levels and existing knowledge. Summary of Behaviorism. n. 2008).d. Teacher-directed and structured classrooms are consistent with this theory. films. Traditional methods of teaching fall into the behaviorist theory of learning (Greevy). 2005). a student who has completed a lesson should be able to do something better than he or she did prior to the lesson (Peake et al. regardless of student ability levels and existing knowledge (Behaviorist Theory. Teacher-directed and structured classrooms are consistent with this theory. beginning with lower level and working to higher levels.. . Under this theory. Behaviorists expect that whenever any instructional activity is effective. Teachers as Behaviorists Learning occurs through drill and practice and the learner is able to give predicted outcomes (Behaviorist Theory. students will change in some obvious and measurable way (Peake et al.). Summary of Behaviorism). and transparencies where students absorb information regardless of the medium used to share the information (Greevy).. From a behaviorist perspective. technology integration is in the form of videos. Summary of Behaviorism). There is less emphasis on group work and more emphasis on individualized work. Instruction is sequential.

they are able to receive additional instruction to discover areas of weakness within a particular skill rather than learning a skill incorrectly (Cornell). technology programs enhance feedback because students receive feedback immediately (Cornell). schools located in the K-4.27 2007). Assessment programs that give immediate feedback to students are highly utilized in behaviorist classrooms. and 9-12 campus feeder pattern were examined. . If this is the case. In a behaviorist classroom. 2007). the student is able to go to a computer to work on the necessary skills while the rest of the class works on another assignment (Cornell). 7-8. 2007). 2006). Teachers who follow a behaviorist approach find it necessary to teach the computer program step-by-step to assist the student in understanding basic principles of using the program (Cornell. District Feeder Pattern: The flow of schools a student may attend through his or her education (Cobb County School District. 5-6. Definition of Terms Blended Learning: For the purpose of this study. when a computer program automatically grades an assessment. From a behaviorist perspective. When students receive immediate feedback. the teacher has more time to focus on other activities. For the purpose of this study. the focus can then shift to the process of the larger task. According to Cornell. Once the students familiarize themselves with the computer program. blended learning is defined as a method that integrates partial online learning with traditional learning methods (Bonk & Graham. when students are working on project and problembased assignments. it is important for students to know how to operate the computer programs at their disposal. Information gleaned from such assessments indicates if a student needs more work on a particular skill set.

Saettler. blogging (Lenhart & Madden. Assumptions Several assumptions were made in selecting the most appropriate design of the study and the selection of the surveying instrument. 2004). For the purpose of this study. The first assumption was that all teachers would provide forthright and truthful answers to the survey instrument questions. online learning is defined as a portion of the curriculum accessed through the internet by teachers and students (Bonk & Graham. Social Networking: Social networking is a method used that allows students to interact with one another using a variety of technological platforms including. Technology Proficient Teachers (Technotraditionalists & Technoconstructivists): Technotraditionalist teachers who use technology proficiently accomplish tasks in the classroom including e-mail and digital slideshows (Mackenzie. 2007). This was assumed because teachers must have an awareness of . teachers who know best instructional practices and integrate technology into the classroom one to five times per week in either teacher-led or student-centered environments were included.28 Online Learning: Online learning has many definitions. it was assumed that the selected interview instruments were valid and reliable. 2006. For the purpose of this study. An additional assumption was that all teachers were aware of their preferred pedagogical preferences. 2005). but not limited to. Technoconstructivists are teachers who use technology to change the classroom approaches to teaching and learning (Mackenzie). Because a pilot study was administered. All individuals invited to participate in the research study were within the same feeder pattern for the district so an assumption was that all staff members solicited would partake in the completion of the interview questions.

Consequences must remain consistent and evenly enforced for those teachers who choose not to implement online educational tools to increase active academic engagement. This study was limited to one feeder pattern located in one suburban school district in north central Texas. 2007). Generalizability was important because it was expected that the data trends discovered with the small population might be carried to a larger population with similar results. Time is essential to the proper development and understanding of a research problem. A final assumption was that data results would be generalizable. This study was limited by the amount of time available to conduct the study. This study was limited by honesty of the subjects’ responses to the interview questions. Qualitative interviews were administered on a volunteer basis to 20 technologically proficient teachers in one suburban school district in north central Texas.29 their practices for best meeting the needs of their students. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended interview questions regarding teachers’ approaches associated with technology integration to promote active academic engagement. The consistency of the consequences must occur among all participants. An assumption was that all subjects would respond in an honest manner to each of the questions posed on the interview. This study was limited when consequences were not evenly applied to teachers who chose not to take a constructivist approach. The interview instrument collected confidential data in examination of the . Scope and Limitations The influence of consequences exists when the consequences are evenly enforced and are not subjective (Cerafoss.

The study was delimited by selection of the population. Because the study population was limited to one suburban feeder pattern in one school district in north central Texas. The researcher could include all teachers K-12 in selected schools within the feeder pattern. volunteering to participate. The data collected from the qualitative portion may be significantly different from the data collected from the quantitative data. The mixed method allowed the researcher to triangulate the quantitative and qualitative data along with the research literature. the generalizability of the study was limited. Prior to the collection of data. were included in the study. only core classroom teachers were selected. thus possibly affecting the generalizability of the study. however.30 individual’s background information (demographic data). and pedagogical practices centered on educational tools to promote active academic engagement. Quantitative surveys were distributed to approximately 400 K-12 teachers in one feeder pattern in one suburban school district in north central Texas. The study was limited to general . a pilot study was conducted to refine the interview instrument and assure its effectiveness. Only teachers within the Fossil Ridge feeder pattern. The study focus was on how teachers use educational technology tools for active engagement among students. Validity of this study was limited to the reliability of the instruments used. Because of this. implementation methods. the researcher felt more confident of the generalizability because the topic was examined from multiple perspectives. The researcher had the opportunity to qualify the quantitative data. Delimitations This study was confined to surveying K-12 classroom teachers in one feeder pattern in one suburban school district located in north central Texas.

Band. Music. Art. including Physical Education. the information derived from this research study may be of value to K-12 education teachers who integrate technology tools into their curriculum. it may be possible to refocus attention for future research to identify how technology integration affects student learning. and Drama. thus eliminating special education and specials teachers. despite the delimitations.31 education teachers. Eventually. . By observing how teachers integrate technology into the curriculum for active engagement among students.

Additionally. Encouraging technology integration and promoting innovation may allow teachers to make pedagogical connections to how technology can support the curriculum (Debevec et al. Pederson. Watson. Understanding that teachers are the key to successful technology integration and using technology to enhance student learning is an area with limited knowledge (Sturgess. 2006. 2006. 2008. 2007. Rentie. The fact that K-12 classrooms is behind using the internet to teach and teachers limit the scope of technology use to record keeping or material creation makes technology integration into the curriculum a problematic area of concern (Judson. Transforming teachers is essential to ensuring student success (Fox. 2007).32 Summary The implementation of constructivist methodology in achieving student achievement in today’s classrooms is essential to the long-term success of these students (Palmer. Watson. 2005). students work in an attempt to achieve higher level thinking through social interaction and exploration of problems while the teacher acts as the facilitator (Palmer). providing teachers with the necessary tools to transform instructional practice to serve as a channel for change (Matzen & Edmunds. 2007). 2006). . 2007). 2007) is essential to student success. United States Department of Education. Changing teacher’s role to a more constructivist approach may be a difficult task to accomplish (Palmer).. 2006. In the constructivist classroom. The data analysis may lead to new discoveries and theories associated with the implementation of educational technology tools used to promote active academic engagement and may enable leaders to determine what modifications are necessary within the school to provide opportunities for teachers to integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement.

The literature review follows a timeline from the history and advancements of distance learning and educational technology to a discussion on a variety of online educational technology tools available for teachers. .33 The literature relevant to online educational technology tools and linkage to active academic engagement is reviewed in the following chapter. Chapter 2 also contains a discussion of how teachers use these tools in today’s classrooms.

Scholarly research detailing the variables were located through EBSCOhost database.34 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this mixed method study was to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools into the classroom to promote active academic engagement. barriers to technology integration. constructivism. Google Scholar. which includes access to full text journals. the study explored particular barriers to technology integration. Each database was searched with key words including educational technology. constructivist teaching. Articles. educational . magazines. Chapter 2 reviewed the literature on cognition and learning. and electronic dissertations through ProQuest database were reviewed. and newspapers. The Thomas Gale Powersearch includes full text access to those periodical articles and peer-reviewed journals with a historical focus from the 1980s. ProQuest database. peer-reviewed articles. There is also a brief discussion on the behaviorist approach to show how teachers who follow this theory integrate technology into their classroom. pamphlets. The historical overview presents a discussion of the study’s conceptual framework. A review of the constructivist approach examined how the approach contributes to the educational environment by allowing students the opportunity to construct new meaning from knowledge gained. Title Searches. various Websites. behaviorism. methods of technology used for active engagement of students in the learning process. instructional technology. Research Documents. Additionally. journal articles. and practices associated with technology integration. and Thomas Gale Powersearch. periodicals. and Journals In addition to published books. behaviorist teaching. The study explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. EBSCOhost database.

organizational change is needed (Bonk & Graham.. As a result. The ProQuest database specifically was searched to locate research studies conducted recently discussing how teachers use technology in the classroom. Historical Overview For the past 20 years educators have struggled with effective integration computers into the K-12 classroom (Peake et al. 2006). Theorists such as Thorndike (connectionism). Leaders in the last 20 years have encouraged the use of educational technology in K-12 classrooms (Brown.. The introduction of new resources led to a debate regarding teachers as being the key player in education. The introduction of computers and telecommunication devices brought new sources to the K-12 schools (Baker). 2004). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) provided additional funds to assist integration of technology into the curriculum by 2006.35 theories. Peake). however. Baker. 2005). Global demands emphasize the need for technology in education. and the old way of doing things no longer works. Standards in technology performances designed for teachers and students require the increase of educational technology in classrooms to enhance student learning (Shaunessy. not the technology applications brought into the system (Baker). many districts still lack the availability . 2005. and educational technologies. 2005. Many changes in education have occurred over time (Baker. 2005). and Vygotsky (zone of proximal development) all gave direction to the early research examining the impact of educational technology on behaviors and learning that has affected today’s classrooms (Peake et al. Saettler. Skinner (operant conditioning). 2002. Pavlov (classical conditioning). 2005).

2007). cooperative. Learning is not a linear process. . the emphasis is placed on the students and the teacher becomes the facilitator (Correiro et al. Finally. Many proposals have been presented to address issues that surround the way students construct meaning (Brooks & Brooks). For learning to occur. In the constructivist theory. The available literature surrounding academic engagement through online technologies is grounded in blended theory specific to constructivism and behaviorism. and conversational (Matzen & Edmunds. n. they are aligned to the curriculum and an assessment is created to measure each student’s ability to meet the standards. Theoretical Framework Two theoretical models guide this research study: constructivism and behaviorism. there is an examination of how educational technology has affected student learning. 2007). Second is the examination of alternative learning environments for all students. it has to be meaningful.).d. however. Once the standards have been created.. the educational system tends to make it linear by developing high standards for each student to meet (Brooks & Brooks. Behaviorists believe that a person’s cultural and sub-cultural conditioning molds individual personalities (Behaviorist Theory. The first perspective examines the advancement of technology.36 of resources and professional development for teachers to assist in the integration (United States Department of Education. 1999). The historical overview examines three perspectives regarding technology. 2008). and meaningful learning is authentic. Learning is the construction of knowledge and occurs through social relationships and is distributed and shared through the community.

objectives are measured. the teacher facilitates the activities. First. Peake et al. Second. Behaviorism The literature reviewed regarding the behaviorist theory was conclusive with the idea that knowledge exists on its own (Barnett. In the first scenario. Learning occurs through drill and practice and the learner is able to give predicted outcomes (Greevy. learning ensues during the transmission and acquisition of knowledge (Summary of Behaviorism). the learning is unstructured. there is a focus on how students learn with computers. Behaviorists believe that learning takes place due to external experiences and that teachers teach and students learn (Greevy. 2008). Categorized in this area are drill and practice games or programs (Barnett). forcing them to use higher order thinking skills lending this type of learning to constructivism (Barnett). Learning Theories. and conduct research (Barnett).. develop presentations.. the computer engages students in a behaviorist ideology. worksheets and tests) (Greevy. In the second scenario. students complete work independently and individually. The computer presents the information. 2008). Summary of Behaviorism). 2003. and then the student responds. 2006. students were engaged. 2003). Greevy. 2005.37 Researchers have studied two significant ways how students use computers in schools (Barnett. 2000. Summary of Behaviorism). In behaviorist classrooms there is practice and feedback on learning experiences. students learn from computers and computers act as a tutor. Butzin. Teacher-directed and structured . and assessment is measured in traditional methods (i. In the behaviorist theory.e. Summary of Behaviorism. Computers allow students to write. Learning Theories. Peake et al. 2005. create. and analyze data. Summary of Behaviorism.

Skinner’s Contribution to Education B. regardless of student ability levels and existing knowledge. such as . 2005). B. Briers. Skinner.). 2005). technology integration is in the form of videos. During early technology integration. students will change in some obvious and measurable way (Peake et al. In this stage. a student who has completed a lesson should be able to do something better than he or she did prior to the lesson (Peake et al. beginning with lower level and working to higher levels. as in drill and practice software programs (Learning Theories.38 classrooms are consistent with this theory. F. Traditional methods of teaching fall into the behaviorist theory of learning (Greevy). Behaviorists expect when any instructional activity is effective. F. Skinner’s operant conditioning. F. Under B. 2005). and transparencies where students absorb information regardless of the medium used to share the information (Greevy). & Murphy. Learning occurs inside one’s own mind and people shape their behaviors by desired responses (Learning Theories). From a behaviorist perspective. believed that learning occurs best when there is a reward after a student provides the desired response. Skinner believed for teachers to take advantage of recent advancements in teaching and learning. Instruction is sequential. learning occurs when behavioral changes have occurred (Peake. films. 2006).. Under the behaviorist theory.. the father of operant conditioning. students provide the correct answer and receive immediate rewards with points or something similar (Peake et al. many teachers fall under the behaviorist approach to learning (Learning Theories). Summary of Behaviorism). There is less emphasis on group work and more emphasis on individualized work and the instruction follows a more traditional approach (Greevy. they must have assistance from mechanical devices.

Skinner realized an educational reform was needed and convinced IBM and Rheem to develop prototype teaching machines (Skinner). Skinner visited a school where he noticed students working on mathematics. Theorists such as. The programmed instruction was engineered with positive reinforcement that stemmed from answering questions correctly (Skinner). The slider machine allowed students to complete their work on cardboard discs. In 1953. students progressed at much higher rates of speed and immediate positive reinforcement shaped student learning behaviors (Skinner). Griffin. Skinner’s contribution to education significantly affected how technology evolved and was included in learning.. some were successful. place it in a machine.39 computers (Skinner.). F. Skinner became frustrated with the amount of time it took for students to receive feedback on assignments. & . 1954). The ages and stages component is a predictor for what students are capable of doing at various stages (Correiro. however. a shift in educational thinking occurred with the manifestation of B. so he created a manila folder teaching machine. In 1953. Skinner did not take credit for the first teaching machine. not the teacher (Correiro et al. Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky believed the emphasis is placed on the students. 2008). ages and stages (Correiro et al. Constructivism Constructivism is not a new theory in education. Piaget upheld the theory of cognitive constructivism that has two major parts. his machine was able to facilitate a programmed instructional design including a positive reinforcement component (Skinner). and receive immediate feedback (Skinner). Skinner’s operant conditioning theory and the inclusion of small technological advances (Skinner). With few mistakes. which later evolved into a slider machine (Skinner). yet others struggled (Skinner).

). In constructivism.. teachers become facilitators of learning who assist students in the construction of meaning and processing of new information. the father of the zone of proximal development. 2002). As a result. Assessments should consider students’ zone of proximal development and must be configured to reach students at their actual development and potential development zones. thus leaving teachers facilitators and coaches rather than knowledge dispensers (Means et al. Teachers use technology tools for active engagement among students at higher cognition levels. Student experiences facilitate the creation of schemas. Teachers are the facilitators who are present to assist students in their construction and building schema to construct their own solutions to existing problems (Correiro et al. Vygotsky’s theories affected many areas of education including curriculum.. thus leaving students accountable and responsible for their own learning as a process (Means et al.40 Hart). The teacher is responsible for providing the engaging activities. the teacher relinquishes control of the learning process.). and assessment. the teacher is responsible for assisting the students in movement through the zone allowing them to become expert users of their new knowledge (Sherman & Kurshan. .). Piaget supported the idea that children build knowledge through experiences (Correiro et al. once the exercises begin. 2005). The curriculum design should allow children to socially interact and construct new meaning from their learning (Brown. also known as mental models (Correiro et al. explained that a student’s zone of proximal development is the distance between actual developmental levels determined by independent problem solving ability and the level of potential development under adult guidance or cooperative learning with higher-level peers. however. Vygotsky (1978). 2008). 2003). instruction.

regardless of student ability levels and existing knowledge. Learning occurs through drill and practice and the learner is able to give predicted outcomes (Summary of Behaviorism). Information gleamed from such assessments indicates if a student needs more work on a particular skill set (Cornell). 2006). Assessment programs that give immediate feedback to students are highly utilized in behaviorist classrooms while constructivist classrooms allow students to seek new knowledge (Cornell. 2007). when a computer program automatically graded an assessment. Instruction is sequential. it is important for students to know how to operate the computer programs at their disposal (Cornell). According to Cornell.d.41 Instruction should scaffold to continually meet individual student needs while keeping each student on a self-paced learning plan to ensure adequate learning is occurring (Funderstanding. Richardson. Behaviorists Behaviorists believe that a person’s cultural and sub cultural conditioning molds individual personalities (Behaviorist Theory.). There is less emphasis on group work and more . 2008). Under the behaviorist theory. Teacher-directed and structured classrooms are consistent with this theory. 2001). beginning with lower level and working to higher levels. n. Methods of Technology Integration Many instructional tools and programs that guide students through particular skills and concepts previously or recently taught within the classroom currently exist (Cornell. knowledge exists on its own and learning ensues during the transmission and acquisition of knowledge (Summary of Behaviorism. When students are working on project and problem-based assignments. the teacher had more time to focus on other activities.

Once students are familiar with the computer program. Learning under behaviorism also demonstrates that success is easily measured and educators feel their time is used more efficiently (Barber). In addition. leaving no room for manipulation of the newly acquired information. Teachers who follow a behaviorist approach find it necessary to teach the computer program systematically to assist the student in understanding basic principles of using the program (Cornell. behaviorists believe the environment should be organized to allow the learner to concentrate on learning rather than assimilation of new knowledge. 2008).42 emphasis on individualized work and the instruction follows a more traditional approach and pedagogical practices. Finally. technology programs enhance feedback because students receive feedback immediately (Cornell). they are able to receive additional instruction to discover areas of weakness within a particular skill rather than learning a skill incorrectly (Cornell). From a behaviorist perspective. . specific objective outcomes are set and the learner knows what is expected (Barber). When students receive immediate feedback. At this time. an assumption is that learning occurred when the learner reacted correctly according to the stimulus presented (Barber). Behaviorist Instructional Practices Computer assisted instruction. 2007). educators are able to break the subject matter into smaller pieces where learners are typically able to respond correctly. Additionally. This method of technology integration is favored because there is a guarantee of specific learning where the objectives are predetermined. Behaviorist theorists favor computer-assisted instruction as a means of technology integration (Barber. they can begin to focus on accomplishing the larger project.

publishing tools. the instructor can set up the learning to be led by either the computer or the teacher and in some cases by both (Cornell). Additionally. This is a commonly utilized approach used with distance learning. Many teachers use direct instruction (Cornell. Teachers are “tapping into the potential of a World Wide Web that is a conversation. Teachers can use instructional software ranging from mind mapping. 2005). With the variety of Web-based instructional programs. 2006). PowerPoint for presentations. but the students are engaged in the learning process (Cornell). Classrooms are making a shift in providing opportunities for students to be creators of new learning through collaborative. 2006). not individualized learning and active participation by all members of the classroom (Richardson). the teacher leads the learning. and vodcasts are methods some teachers use to transform the curriculum.43 Direct instruction. where knowledge is . 2007). Constructivist classrooms provide students opportunities to construct knowledge for themselves in a way that they are able to understand it (Sherman & Kurshan. Teachers use a variety of methods to provide students with opportunities to make meaning from new knowledge. Constructivist Instructional Practices Teachers today implement a variety of methods to reach students across disciplines (Richardson. assessments can be for instant grading. word processing. A variety of methods is available to assist teachers with the implementation of technology tools into the classroom. and a variety of educational software. allowing learning to occur far beyond the classroom doors (Richardson. not a lecture. wikis. databases. Weblogs. In direct instruction. Teachers in constructivist classrooms use computer programs to help students demonstrate their knowledge. podcasts.

2004). or podcasts (Munshi. There is limited research on how K-12 schools use internet technologies for the purposes of teaching and learning. Utilizing online discussion boards is one method teachers use to allow students to help one another bridge connections. the teacher can monitor the interaction between students. In online discussion boards. . especially in higher education and specific states that are homes to state led virtual academies. Virtual learning environments (VLEs). Virtual learning environments (VLEs) are becoming more popular. 2007). virtual learning environments. there is no option for the state led virtual academies so public schools are leaning toward implementation of virtual learning environments. p. wikis. Online discussion boards. This facet of social networking is oftentimes used as a motivational tool and a teaching tool. One recurring theme from the available literature is students enjoy learning from their peers through discussion and interaction in the online format (Brown.44 shaped and acquired through a social process. The evolution of distance learning has occurred from the focus on students who reside in rural areas to vibrant communities of learners who are in continual contact with one another (Justus. and where ideas are presented as a starting point for dialogue. Some of the schools service K-12. others are limited in the grade levels they serve. 2002). Additionally. the teacher can guide the students in discussion with a varying level of discussion questions while monitoring struggling students (Cornell. In some states. 126). Social learning is a process where individuals learn from others. typically through the computer in the form of blogs. however. 2005). not an ending point” (Richardson.

45 Blended learning and social networking environments. Blended learning allows teachers to address all student needs. energy. 2003. Dzuiban. there are even fewer studies regarding the effectiveness of this type of environment. Hartman. Because a blended learning environment is a relatively new topic and limited research is available regarding the practice. 2004). Blended learning is also referred to as integrated learning. p. “Blended learning should be the ultimate perfect solution to tailoring learning to fit not only the learning need. Blended learning environments allow teachers to address all student needs. 17). however. and commitment to move from theory to implementation. The expansion of flexible learning environments and opportunities leads to an increase in . Blended learning is a relatively new term in education. 2006). 2007). Learning must invoke excitement. hybrid learning. & Moskal. The idea of blended learning stems from combining virtual learning with traditional learning. 2006). but also the style of the learner” (Thorne. This type of learning environment is allows students opportunities for active engagement at all times and can potentially learn more than they would in a traditional classroom setting (Bonk & Graham. Bonk & Graham. there is a higher level of interaction than what is normally found in a face-to-face learning environment (Wingard. The expansion of flexible learning environments and opportunities leads to an increase in student achievement for all students (Bonk & Graham. and multi-method learning (Rovai & Jordan. More learning takes place in student-centered learning environments. In a blended learning environment. particularly linked to the K-12 learning environment. 2004). blended learning environments have been separated because of their vast differences in media and methods to address the needs of students (Rovai & Jordan.

Owen. the online learning environment can be a frustrating task (Bonk & Graham). teachers and students correspond through e-mail. 2003). This type of learning environment transforms student learning. however. The online learning environment is not suitable for all individuals (Bonk & Graham. & Mou. Web-supplemented or technology-enhanced courses are those that add supplementary components online to a traditional course. 2006). The general findings indicate there is not any significant difference in the achievement or satisfaction between the students in distance learning courses and those in traditional classrooms (Hirschheim). Traditional face-to-face interaction is familiar and comfortable to many learners and online learning may not appeal to them. 2006). 2006). Blended learning environments could potentially become one of the most momentous developments in the 21st century (Thorne. Research has been conducted to discover if student performance increases when receiving distance learning through internet delivery (Hirschheim. 2005). Students . 2003). In blended learning environments. and other online tools in combination with traditional face-to-face methods including lectures and in class exams (Tang. Web-supplemented or technology-enhanced courses. the amount of face-to-face time is not diminished (Bonk & Graham.46 student achievement for all students (Bonk & Graham. Drawbacks associated with blended learning and social network environments include limited knowledge or enthusiasm of the concept (Thorne. threaded discussion questions. 2004). 2006). Social networking is not a new concept despite educator beliefs (Metz. 2004). Biocca. For some individuals who have limited technology skills. Social networks allow students the opportunity to integrate social behaviors with their academic instruction (DePaula.

and wikis. Podcasting has significant pedagogical potential (Bausell. E-learning can be used to motivate gifted and talented students (Singh & Reed. 31). 2006. Many students change the way they approach their learning because of taking online classes (MacLachlan. The method of instruction must be matched to each individual student to maximize success and learning opportunities (Singh & Reed). Podcasts/Screencasting (Vodcasts). Online learning environments require students to remain focused and allow students to approach learning in a way that is meaningful. Online learning improves student learning and achievement outcomes because there is a better match of method with student outcomes and programs offered (Singh & Reed). Podcasts can provide meticulous learning opportunities for students of all ages. 2001). Motivation tends to be higher in online environments and student learning style directly affects how students perceive online learning environments (Brotz. allowing students the opportunity to take the concepts into as much depth and complexity as they choose (MacLachlan). Podcasting is the creation and distribution of amateur radio programs where everyday people talk about things that interest them (Richardson. 2006). Students typically spend a larger amount of time disseminating the class information and feel it is more personable to them and their individual learning needs. 2006). p. blogs. weblogging. 2006). Podcasting is “a set of technologies for supplying audio or video programs over the internet” (Dervin. Podcasting can be . Podcasting is a new technology in which there is limited information on the uses and benefits (Behler. 2007). 2004). Completion rates tend to be higher in online environments than traditional environments (Brotz).47 who do not raise their hands to participate in traditional classrooms oftentimes flourish in Web-supplemented or technology-enhanced classrooms (Bonk & Graham).

is another medium used to influence student learning (Richardson. Screencasting. In World Language classes. 2006). The creation of the content for either a screencasting or a podcasting event is collaborative (Richardson). English Language Learners (ELLs) can have podcast access at school to improve their fluency of the English language (Richardson). also known as vodcasting. Social studies teachers can have students conduct interviews or create historical reenactments. teachers can record and publish daily lessons that students can download and listen to at home (Richardson. Students have the ability to construct new meaning from generalized information they have received. 2006). there is limited research available on grassroot bloggers and limited information on comparing blog content across cultures (Feng. Screencasting is podcasting with video and narration added (Richardson). A combination of screencasting and podcasting can affect how student learning occurs. 2006). Podcasting stems from digital recordings and is very easy to create. students can publish and share their work across the internet. however. Blogging is one of the latest forms of technology integration in academics.48 beneficial to students in allowing them to construct their own learning as well as providing students with disabilities inexpensive methods of learning reinforcement (Beheler). Many pedagogical implications arise from using podcasts. Blogging is a tool that has . students will enter a post education professional life where they will be expected to work collaboratively with others (Richardson). while science teachers can have students narrate labs they have experienced (Richardson). Collaborative efforts are important because beyond the K-12 schools. After development of podcasts.

2006). the content adds to the body of knowledge that the internet stores for millions of people to see (Richardson). The relevancy of student work is increased. Weblogs expand the walls of the classroom. it immediately becomes relevant to them and affects their learning process. the levels of learning and depth are different. Weblogging has several pedagogical implications (Richardson. Weblogs can enhance student learning and . 2004. Weblogging is advantageous for several reasons. The reading and writing connection made through the internet is still in its very early stages (Richardson. Blogs facilitate a motivating environment that is free of criticism and judgment (Cole). Weblogs are a constructivist tool for learning that promotes the reading and writing connection (Richardson). mainly retention of course material and differentiation of course materials for students of all ability levels (Bersin. The content that all students and teachers create using Weblogs are created through the World Wide Web (WWW) and is accessible to anyone. and holds all students accountable for the same content. however. Bonk & Graham.49 potential benefits to struggling readers (Cole. and support learning by archiving prior conversations allowing for future metacognitive analysis and reflections that were once burdensome (Richardson). Weblogging is one method used to promote active academic engagement and discussion among students. 2006). therefore. adults. Blogs provide an environment that fosters quality responses and promotes higher levels of thinking and discussion (Cole). When students have an awareness that their work is visible for anyone to read and respond to. 2004). and others in academia. 2006). Blogs have proven to have a positive impact on student and teacher attitudes to technology integration into the classroom (Cole). Weblogs support various levels of student abilities.

journaling stories read in class. including reflecting on books read. Additionally teachers can use Weblogs as a social networking tool to promote active academic engagement (Richardson). “To write in a wiki is to compose within a living organism” (Allison. Wikis are a highly effective method of actively engaging students in the writing process (Richardson. the promotion of social networking for academic purposes to allow students the opportunity to make connections is prevalent in this type of learning environment. Content knowledge may occur when the teacher uses deconstruction of old knowledge and reconstruction of new knowledge.50 expertise in areas of interest. as cited in Richardson. Wikis are quickly gaining popularity as educators see the value in supporting authentic learning (Tello & Lewis. Students can analyze and synthesize relevant information to develop a deeper understanding of the content being linked (Richardson. While Weblogging is still in its infancy in K-12. Many pedagogical implications for Weblogging exist. Advancements of Educational Technology Educational technology dates back as far as the invention of the printing press (Saettler. 67). 2006). The use of a wiki requires students to critically think and read to see if their topic already exists in the discussion. p. 2005. 2008). A wiki is an online website that allows users to add and edit content. Johann Friedrick Herbart (1777-1841) developed the first systems approach to instruction with a four step learning design (Saettler). they learn about collaboration (Richardson). 2006). As students interact within the wiki. Maria Montessori (1870-1952) is another innovator and her impact on educational technology is her . researching a specific topic or discussing questions to promote critical thinking. 2004).

Thomas Edison was one of the first to invent such films for the classroom (Saettler). The history of distance learning today is on a . which significantly affected education and was known as the visual instruction method (Saettler. slide films. television.51 development of graded materials designed to provide an appropriate sequence and assessment of the material. 1994). Distance learning has advanced from the use of educational technology that dates back prior to 1900. The early 1900s was a time for change in the educational world. This spontaneous eruption led to the invention of educational film. and motion picture films (Saettler). people began shifting their educational philosophies from humanism to realism (Nelson.D. lantern slides. These contributions to educational technology were made prior to the twentieth century although many educators believe they are relatively recent. or radio (Toporski & Foley.). film. 1981). models. developments in China and the Middle East began surfacing using simple machines (Zargari & MacDonald. Change occurred when there was a significant amount of visual instruction in the form of stereographs. During European colonization (1585-1763 A.). In the 1900s. there was an attempt to mimic traditional classroom lectures using live broadcasting regardless of the elected technologies selected. educational technology began as early as 1780 with the view of teachers as individuals in charge of classroom instruction and assessment (Computer Questions. The 1900s instigated a shift in how education was viewed. The various technologies included satellite. 2007).D. The first use of educational technology began around 1910 with the development of nontheatrical film in which educational agencies began to see the possibilities that existed (Saettler. 2004). maps. In fact. During the Middle Ages (500 to 1500 A. 2004). 2004).

1994). 2007). The literature is consistent with the dating of technology and the current day demands of the use of technology. . there has not been solid evidence that the same type of environment would be beneficial for younger students because it changes the educational landscape (Litke. There is an increase in the readily available technology making an entrance into the younger educational settings. Zargari & MacDonald. The dissemination of ideas regarding educational technology was in contradiction because there are varying definitions of what educational technology is (Januszewski. 2003. many states have begun an educational reform. however. Educational technology is currently experiencing substantial growth and society is continuously transformed by the existing technologies that encompass it (JIME: Educational Technology. Education has progressed from oral traditions found in a variety of cultures to online colleges and universities. At the end of 2006. 25 have state-led learning programs and 18 states are home to 147 virtual charter schools. the focus has been primarily in higher education. Studies have concluded that online learning activities are suitable for adult learners. The roots of online learning stem back before the 1960s. Of the 38 states. 38 states had established state-led learning programs as well as policies that regulate the online learning (Watson). such as K-12 institutions.52 continuum from the spoken language to current day digitalized transmissions (Saettler). While K-12 education is seriously lagging behind the postsecondary institutions in using the internet to teach (Watson. 1998). the online learning environment supports over 65. In total. however. 1994).000 students (Watson).

. and present that information (Watson). technology provides teachers with necessary tools that allow students to gather information. Despite the rapid growth of K-12 online education. it faces many challenges and controversy in some states. communicate. 2007). policymakers. In the 1980s. The issues currently examined are fitting the new model of learning into an existing one that has created policies for physical brick and mortar schools. Technology integrated within the classroom has shown an increase in student performance (Watson.. Saettler (2004) argued that technologies do not mediate the learning. they began generating individual ideas and meaning based on experience (Saettler). Several states have expressed a concern as to whether online learning is an appropriate method of teaching and a good use of public education funds. 2005).. Additionally. 2000). The controversy surfaces around redefining the preconceived notions of educators. 2005).53 Alternative Learning Environments Educational technology is a tool that increases performance levels while allowing the use of innovative approaches with regard to teaching and learning (George. but the learning process and gaining of knowledge is mediated by cognitive processes that technology produces. Students were no longer passively responding to instructional stimuli. The instructional theories began to transition from behaviorism to constructivism (Peake et al. 2007). Saettler. more computers began surfacing in schools to improve the teaching and learning process (Peake et al. 2004). Drill and practice components of educational technology implementation had become prevalent in the 1980s. There is limited data that reports the requirements as to . Educational technology is a method that allows students to have experiential and enjoyable learning experiences (Peake et al. and legislators (Watson.

graphing programs. etc. instructional software. Some states are embracing this new method of student learning while others are resisting. 2002. Studies also indicate that there is no impact on student learning (Businesses Services Industry.. When technology is used as a tool in the classroom (behaviorist approaches). etc. locating information from a database. they are using technology tools (Businesses Services Industry. When students use applications such as word processing. mind mapping software. spell check on written compositions. spreadsheet applications. 2008). Poirot. & Soloway. teachers are able to control instructional strategies . databases. extensions to classroom projects. Correiro et al. manipulating data in a spreadsheet. and the operations of these programs (Watson). Norris.. Sullivan. Correiro et al. Teachers can use technology tools as tutorial assistance. Alpha smarts.. The inclusion of technology in the classroom has changed the teacher’s role from a knowledge dispenser to a facilitator or student coach (Brown. and exploratory projects. known as problem based or project based learning projects (Summary of Behaviorism. online/on-screen calculators. 2003).. publishing classroom newspapers. 2005. Correiro et al. how many programs exist.54 how students are taking online courses. or creating a mind map for writing using mind mapping software. When the students shift from simply using the tools to manipulating the tools through composing essays. PALM Pilots. students become actively engaged in the learning process and begin constructing new knowledge (Brown. 2003). Impact of Technology Use on Learning Studies of instructional technology use over the last 10 years have shown how technology positively affects student learning (Means et al.). 2008). Norris et al.).

p. Much research exists that determines the effectiveness of using technology in classrooms to promote active engagement (Siving-Kachala & Bialo. 15). graphing mathematical data. Barnett. Using educational technology has led to a significant positive effect on student achievement (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo. using desktop publishing software for the creation of classroom newspapers. Technology Proficient Teachers Teachers do not feel well prepared for the challenges in the classroom (McKenzie. Scott Noon designed a four-tier model to identify .55 and integration into the curriculum. For many teachers technology is one more delegated thing that they did not sign up for (McKenzie). thus the technology provides students with new methods of obtaining and manipulating data (Means et al. positive effects exist in all major subject areas in preschool through higher education students of regular education and special education. 2003). p. 2000). such as writing and editing with word processing software. however.. accessing databases to obtain information. 15). According to Sivin-Kachala and Bialo. 2005). “A growing body of research shows. “Original research reports and reviews of educational research published between 1990 and 1998 confirm that microcomputers and other educational technologies have beneficial effects on student achievement” (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo. Teachers can apply technology tools in a variety of disciplinary contexts. and employing instructional software used for a variety of purposes (Means et al. characteristic of the learners. the design of the software and technology implementation decisions made by educators” (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo. 2003). that the effectiveness of educational technology depends on a match between the goals of instruction.).

56 technology proficiency levels regarding the integration of technology into their existing instructional practices (McKenzie). Technotraditionalists are teachers who are able to use technology proficiently to accomplish classroom tasks such as word processing. enrich professional practice. and virtual classrooms (McKenzie). but all standard measures are based on the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS). The four stages on Noon’s model are: (a) Preliterate. colleagues. and (d) Technoconstructivist (McKenzie). have not yet discovered curriculum usefulness (McKenzie). Technocrats are teachers who are able to experiment with the existing technologies. Technoconstructivists implement online projects. many . (c) Technotraditionalist. however. ¶ 1) Proficiency levels vary from state to state (ISTE. online/electronic gradebooks. implement. WebQuests. and the community. The standards expect effective teachers to model and apply National Educational Technology Standards (NETS-S) as they design. and e-mail (McKenzie). lesson planning. Finally. 2008). virtual field trips. 2008. (b) Technocrat. Preliterate teachers are those who are not using technology for either personal or instructional purposes (McKenzie). 2008). While many states have not officially adopted a definition of what a technology proficient teacher is. and provide positive models for students. the Technoconstructivists teachers use technology to transform their approaches to teaching and student learning within the classroom. The National Educational Technology Standards (NETS-T) and Performance Indicators for Teachers identify several indicators to define technologically proficient teachers (International Technology Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (ISTE. and assess student learning experiences to engage students and improve learning.

The NETS specify a desired performance profile with respect to technology proficient teachers. When teachers assign more complex tasks students become more active in defining their own learning goals and regulating learning as a process (Means et al). When students collaborate. there are also contradicting studies stating integration of educational technology has little to no impact on student learning (Businesses Services Industry. A study conducted to examine the connection between teacher support and student engagement showed that students who had supportive teachers were more likely to be actively engaged than those without the support (Klem & Connell. 2000). Much literature surrounds how technology positively affects student learning.Teachers assign students with assignments or tasks that have a level of personal meaning and relevance (Means et al.). SivinKachala and Bialo (2000) supported the use of online telecommunication across classrooms for collaboration among students from different geographic regions to improve academic skills. resulting in a more complex. When students work on tasks that are more complex..57 states rely on the NETS for both teachers and students to assess proficiency. 2004). however. multidisciplinary assignment (Means et al. their learning becomes interactive and collaborative (Means et al. Peake et . Active Engagement High levels of active engagement during lessons are associated with higher levels of achievement and student motivation (Ryan & Deci. thus providing active academic engagement. 2005). 2003). they are more motivated because they like to work together.). schools and districts are able to examine the performance standards and design their own assessment to measure performance standards (ISTE). The tasks should be meaningful. however.

. 2007). 2005). 2007). Research supports the notion that more students have access to the internet. Additional research supports that technology is hypothesized to have a positive impact on student learning. Using blogs to promote writing in the classroom is beneficial to promoting active academic engagement. There is a social paradigm shift in the way that twenty-first century youth . The use of blogging has recently been examined as a means to promote active academic engagement and a method to involve students in the learning process (Jones). and high schools through higher education (Jones. there has not been any significant research to support that the use of this tool has had significant impact on student performance on the Stanford Achievement Test administered in California (Gonsalves. Blogs have become a potential instructional tool to promote writing in schools (Jones). however. Blogging also alleviates some of the issues involving student trust and confidence involved in peer editing and revision (Jones). Additionally there are societal dependencies on computer technology (Ponschock).58 al. middle. The use of computer technology is a provider for many conveniences (Ponschock. however. research results indicate that no significant associations were found between a teacher’s level of integration and passage rates on standardized testing (Peake et al. (2005) discovered a positive low correlation between teachers’ integration of technology into the curriculum and student achievement levels as noted on state mandated standardized testing. Writing across disciplines is a concern addressed in primary. Blogs foster critical thinking skills that affect the quality of writing the students are able to produce. Blogging is an effective method for teaching the writing process to second language learners (Jones). 2005).

The students reported enjoying the use of blogs versus traditional methods because of the ease of use and the freedom to express themselves without criticism (Littrell). No lectures on course content existed nor did instruction on how to use the elected technology (Yazon).59 communicate with one another and develop social relationships (Ponschock). The girls wrote longer and more frequently in blogs than in their handwritten journals (Littrell). set their own timelines. This method provided motivation for students to develop their thinking about their current studies including literature read. Yazon (2004) conducted a 9-month case study in a high school in the Philippines to explore the experiences with technology research and project-based pedagogy with secondary students and teachers. Present day youth use social networking agents such as MYSPACE ™ and internet blogging in place of previous discussions that used to occur on the street corner or playground (Ponschock). Littrell examined the frequency and length of the writing as well as the perceptions about blogging and writing. 2006). and can build a sense of community (Roger. however. The teacher allowed students to choose their own research projects. Using newspaper blogs has an effect on both reading and reading behavior. which in turn moved them forward in their thinking and kept them writing (Littrell). and direct their selected course of research. The teachers met in small group settings and held individual conferences with students to guide them with their research process and clarify any misunderstandings (Yazon). one of the teachers in the classroom had to approve the research topic . Using newspaper blogs to build a community is another area of research interest. Littrell (2005) explored the possibility of using Web blogs in areas such as MYSPACE™ for literature journals replacing the handwritten journals for reader’s response with 10 eighth grade girls.

Sivin-Kachala and Bialo (2000) outlined several studies indicating a positive effect on student learning when incorporating technology into the curriculum (SivinKachala & Bialo). Students were able to view their learning as a process. Evidence supported that students who used word processing software combined with carefully sequenced instruction during the writing process improved their writing significantly more than those who wrote to a real audience using the internet or e-mail (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). The use of technology in education today is one of the most significant shifts (Means et al.. Data indicated this type of program provided a rich and practical learning environment for students where there was blending of technology design and science inquiry (Yazon). which usually comprised of three to four students per group (Yazon). Instances occurred where students presented their findings and received feedback on their research at its current state (Yazon). research has shown that students’ level of participation increases when technology is integrated (Sivin- . technology has proven to provide learning advantages (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). vocabulary development. Many students felt technology should be used as an aid and if it were not used in that fashion there was a loss of relevancy to what they were doing (Yazon). 2003. Advantages observed were in phonological awareness. Yazon). merely guidance. This project forced the students to engage in their learning and it allowed them to be creative problem solvers because students had to figure out the next step with little teacher instruction. One finding indicated that many students worked outside of class to complete their research projects with their groups. In mathematics. reading comprehension. and spelling (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). In studies that focused on reading and language arts.60 and timeline (Yazon).

teachers asked students to complete authentic . students stayed on task longer. In the Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project. 2000). or research. Areas where kindergarten students have demonstrated improved conceptual knowledge are reading vocabulary. Additionally. All teachers were extensively trained (Barnett). The special needs population has benefited as well (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). 2003. As illustrated in the Apple’s Classrooms of Tomorrow project (ACOT).61 Kachala & Bialo). students used higher-order thinking skills beyond the expectation for their grade level (Barnett). kindergartners who have used technology have benefited (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). Sivin-Kachala & Bialo. There are more opportunities for hands-on constructivist experiential activities. reading comprehension. and teacher’s belief systems began to change (Barnett). 2000). Research through the ACOT project concluded that students used higher order thinking skills. and creativity (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). technology was a pivotal element in the success rate of students. The Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project reinforces the ACOT findings. Research surrounding the use of student learning with computers is fundamental in the development of present day classrooms to engage students in higher-order thinking skills and processes (Barnett. which links to students demonstrating a higher conceptual understanding of specified math topics (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). Using simulations in science education has led to increased understanding and a decrease of misconceptions related to science objectives and concepts (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo. In ACOT classrooms. students demonstrated the ability to collaborate more easily with peers. develop presentation/projects. analyze data. The technology was available to students anytime they needed to write.

Further research concluded that when students interact with peers that are more capable they achieve at higher levels (Brown. The areas evaluated were “understanding content. Each year the state would add a grade until they reached grade six. In this study. and student willingness limit discussion (Brown). The first study is the West Virginia Basic Skills Study. Following is a brief discussion of how students learn from computers as shown in two longitudinal studies. Discussion is one method to promote the student interaction. student abilities. however. number of students. 2003). ¶ 23). West Virginia began implementing computer technology one grade at a time beginning with the first grade (Barnett. it is essential that teachers maintain a clear balance between learning with computers and learning from computers in combination with other instructional tools based on the objectives of the lesson (Barnett). The researchers followed students from first through sixth and found that the students who were learning . and applying principles of design in the format and layout of their brochures” (Barnett. many factors such as time. The research revealed that the students in the Multimedia Project classrooms consistently outscored their peers who were in non-project classrooms (Barnett). One alternative to foster student learning and discussion is using electronic discussion groups to provide effective learning environments and to promote social learning (Brown).62 assessments where teachers expected students to manipulate data (Barnett. Teachers received extensive training and the schools had the option to have a computer lab or computers within the classroom (Barnett). adapting their message to their intended audience. The use of discussion is integral to promoting student learning. 2003). When integrating technology into the curriculum. 2002). The schools were required to select software matching state content standards.

the computers contributed to higher scores in higher and lower achieving students. 2006). 2000). A second study. The research showed when students used computers as a tutor or to receive information. 2004). Huang). reflect on their own understanding. 2004. Constructivist learning is not limited to receiving knowledge. . allowing the learner to shape and extend his or her thinking. and the students had better discipline (Barnett. another form of technology integration. 2006). Project CHILD. It is important to provide methods of instruction that prove meaningful to students (Sturgess. the students did better when computers were placed in the classroom versus a computer lab (Barnett). the role of language changes. The process of constructive learning is active. Social networks. 2003). and apply their new knowledge (Huang). Technology research pedagogy can change the teaching practices and learning approaches in classrooms. In this environment. The use of hands-on-projects has proven to increase motivation and increase student involvement (Huang).63 from computers had higher gains on statewide tests. Learning communities grounded in constructivism allow learners immediate knowledge within a social context (DePaula. Additionally. placed computers in the classroom and provided extensive training to the teachers (Butzin. rather it includes building knowledge (Huang. and a technologyenriched curriculum can be designed to help equip twenty-first century students to become both critical thinkers and leaders (Yazon. Students who are constructivists create their own interpretations. allow students the opportunity to integrate social behaviors with their academic instruction (DePaula). conducted in Florida.

64 Barriers to Technology Integration Technology is a national initiative under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; however, many teachers are still unwilling, unaccepting, or unable to integrate technology into their curriculum (Klamik, 2005). Attitude is one factor that inhibits teachers’ abilities and willingness to integrate technologies, on any scale, into their classrooms (Klamik). Little research is available on how teachers’ acquire attitudes and beliefs as well as the influence those beliefs have on technology integration into the classroom (Bigatel, 2004). There is a growing interest in the implementation of technology into the classroom, yet there is limited research to depict the importance of integrating technology in the classroom to promote active academic engagement. There is a need for more research regarding the integration of technology into the curriculum and it is necessary to examine this research to understand existing uses and integration practices (Apsler, Formica, Fraster, & McMahan, 2006). Teachers who integrate technology into their teaching are both skilled in the practice and possess high comfort levels of technology usage and integration in the classroom (Smith, 2006). Technology competency does not promote usage unless teachers feel comfortable with the integration of technology (Smith). Most public schools have internet access; however, teachers are reluctant to integrate technology into their classrooms (Herndon, 2006). Research illustrates teacher attitudes are a strong predictor for computer integration. Many conditions, including time, resources, access, and training obstructs successful technology integration (Herndon).

65 Many teachers implement technology into the classroom at least one time per week allowing students to demonstrate mastery of skills, to help children express themselves, or to allow children to practice skills not previously taught (White, 2004). Teachers who have higher levels of constructivist practices are more likely to use computers than those with lower levels of constructivist practices (Peake et al., 2005). Teacher attitudes and administrator behaviors affect levels of technology integration into the classroom (Hardin, 2006). Many principals view technology as a support or supplemental tool to classroom instruction. Oftentimes leaders feel their role in technology integration was that of a provider of technology funds (Hardin). With the influx of technology into K-12 classrooms, it is an expectation that teachers will successfully integrate technology into their curriculum. A significant impact to teacher’s willingness to incorporate technology into the curriculum is the level of professional development and support received (White, 2004). There are significant gaps in the literature illustrating professional development programs that support teachers in technology integration, which significantly influences teacher’s attitudes (White). Professional development, or lack of professional development, is a theme associated with negative attitudes toward integrating technology into the curriculum. Professional development experiences usually center on computer skills, not the implementation within the classroom (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2000). Therefore, a lack of professional development and professional development serves as a barrier to technology integration. Examining the long-term effects of professional development that models constructivist learning environments and integration of technology within their

66 environment is necessity to facilitate positive learning environments that promote active engagement for all students (NCES). The literature illustrates significant differences exist when measuring teacher attitudes (Green, 2006; Smith, 2006). Teachers who integrate technology into their teaching are both skilled and possess high comfort levels (Green; Smith). Teacher’s attitudes toward computers are not related to skill and ability level with computers (Green; Smith). Teachers with higher levels of anxiety were less likely to incorporate technology into their curriculum (Green; Smith). Time and resources. According to Steinhoff (2007), time and the lack of time was the most frequently identified barrier to change. “Compounding the teacher’s struggle with time is the reality that close to a third of the student’s day is spent on non-academic activity (recess, lunch, expressive arts, arrival/dismissal)” (Steinhoff, p. 145). Many teachers agree that much is expected with limited resources available (Steinhoff). In addition, trainings are too few and rushed (Steinhoff). Change and resistance to change. Most individuals are pretty positive and open to change until that change occurs within one’s organization (Steinhoff, 2007)). “Resistance to change refers to forces acting against successful implementation of change” (Foster, 2008, p. 2). Teachers are a classic example of this because teachers become frustrated when students are not receptive to learning; however, teachers are often resistant with respect to instructional innovations, new technologies, and collaboration among peers (Foster; Steinhoff). People are creatures of habit and once teachers become accustomed to a particular style or method of teaching or reaching their students they are resistant to changes (Steinhoff). Change forces people to move from familiar to unfamiliar territories

67 (Foster; Steinhoff). Sometimes individuals resist change because there is a conflict with personal interest or it may be difficult to find a reason for the resistance (Foster). People have the need to feel in control (Steinhoff). Additionally, people feel threatened by changes in how things are structured and how individuals are evaluated (Foster; Steinhoff). People resist new changes because they feel threatened and the commitment to new programs may suggest that the old ways of doing things were wrong, when in fact they were simply ineffective (Foster; Steinhoff, 2007). Gaps in the Literature Virtual learning in K-12 is following in the footsteps of the expansion of learning opportunities similar to higher education (Rice, 2006). Implementation of the varying degrees and types of technology has occurred with a limited research base and the research available is focused on higher education and adult distance learning (Rice). A lack of quality studies regarding distance education exists; however, the research base continues to grow to include both comparative studies and studies that try to identify factors connected to quality instruction (Bernard, Abrami, Lou, & Borokhovski, 2004). K-12 virtual components or blended learning approaches are needed to provide a challenging environment for the average to high-level learners (Brown, 2002; Rice, 2006). Virtual learning in K-12 is following in the footsteps of the expansion of learning opportunities similar to what is seen in higher education and corporate America (Rice). Implementation of the varying degrees and types of technology has occurred with a limited research base and the research available is typically focused on higher education and adult distance learning (Rice).

particularly when it directly affects methods they are expected to utilize in reaching students (Steinhoff. Extensive research exists which discusses technology tools integrated into the K12 classroom. Gaps noted in the literature indicate that teachers consider and use technology as a tool rather than a means of active engagement among students in controlling their own learning process (Means et al. Teachers are resistant to change. Steinhoff). but the research base continues to grow to include both comparative studies as well as those studies that try to identify the factors connected to quality instruction (Rice. minimal research currently exists about the effective use of technology tools to promoting active academic engagement for all students in K-12 classrooms. People. however. 2003). 2003. have the need to feel in control (Steinhoff). 1994). and transformation of education with the existing technologies that encompass it (JIME: Educational Technology. Zargari & MacDonald. rather the focus is embedded on utilizing technology tools as extension activities provided for some students. teachers in particular. 2008.The focal point has been mostly on higher education (Brown).68 There is a lack of quality studies in general regarding distance education. 2006). when in fact they were simply ineffective (Foster. People resist new changes because they feel threatened and the commitment to new programs may suggest that the old ways of doing things were wrong. This study is specific to providing active academic engagement opportunities for all students at any point in the school day rather than selected students upon completion of current tasks Conclusion Educational technology is currently experiencing substantial growth.. 2007). Current research discusses .

and the old way of doing things no longer works. Leaders in the last 20 years have encouraged the use of educational technology in K-12 classrooms. There are teachers who still prefer behaviorist approaches because it is reliable and structured. organizational change is needed (Bonk & Graham.69 the use of available technologies (JIME: Educational Technology. Zargari & MacDonald). The traditional classroom learning environment is teacher-centered. Sometimes traditional classrooms are overwhelming due to all of the activity and noise that occur. however. Watson. 2005). limited research is available in K-12 schools (Bonk & Graham. Using technology in the classroom is one method presently used to begin a shift from traditional methods of instruction to more constructivists–compatible instruction in some cases (Matzen & Edmunds. the transition from tools to active engagement is nonexistent. Global demands emphasize the need for technology in education. many districts still lack the availability of resources and professional development for teachers to assist in the integration of technology (United States Department of Education. 2007). 2007). however. 2007). Resistance to change is one barrier preventing an empirical shift from behaviorism to constructivism. As a result. The use of educational technologies is a new method of instruction that needs to be studied to examine the effectiveness on student learning (Askun. The research is vastly popular in the business sector and in higher education. however. Standards in technology performances designed for teachers and students have required the increase of educational technology in classrooms to enhance student learning (Shaunessy. In . 2006. 2006). 2007). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has provided additional funds to assist integration of technology into the curriculum by 2006.

students are willing to take risks. which is difficult to overcome. Incorporating technology tools into K-12 classrooms will afford students the opportunity to become active learners and assume some control over the depth and complexity they wish to study a concept (Tomlinson. Understanding teachers as constructivists is necessary to understand where K-12 education is headed.70 student-centered environments. p. dynamic learning takes place with an accurate and active exchange of information and ideas (Carpenter. The structural foundation in which a student learns reflects the fostering of structural dependence needed by that student (Carpenter). Because the environment is safe. In traditional classrooms. especially during adolescent years. For education to shift from the old way of doing things to a more constructivist . A student who is not comfortable in a traditional learning environment oftentimes flourishes in an alternative learning environment (Carpenter). “The atmosphere of the online community is one in which communication can occur safely.. 33). When students take risks they become more confident and know they have classmates to rely on if their risk turns to failure. Students are motivated and have the opportunity to reflect before taking the risk of speaking aloud in these environments (Carpenter). Correiro et al. 2004). trust is valued and promotes a spirit of adventure” (Carpenter. A significant discovery was the importance of providing a meaningful learning environment when establishing curriculum (Sturgess). the risk turning to failure could lead to humiliation. students’ participation increases (Carpenter. 2006). 2006). 2008). When the environment is student-centered. The integration of technology into the classrooms is likely to be unsuccessful unless there is an understanding of how teachers’ attitudes and beliefs affect the implementation of such tools across disciplines (Pederson.

2006) and be willing to make changes within the buildings they serve.71 approach teachers and leaders must acknowledge antiquated methods will no longer work (Bonk & Graham. .

2004). p. 157). Changing the way teachers think and use technology tools to reach students at a higher level and providing more challenging tasks is fundamental to student success (Tomlinson. “the old way of doing things will no longer work” (Bonk & Graham. use of technologies that promote integration and hence increase student development is still at a low level (Pederson. it is an expectation that teachers will successfully integrate technology into the curriculum. The need for additional professional development is one factor illustrated in the literature as a contributing factor inhibiting teachers from integrating technology into their curriculum. 2006. The study also explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. 2004). This mixed method study explored how teachers integrate educational technology tools into the classroom to promote active academic engagement. The research design and methodology will be discussed in Chapter 3. The message. 2006). 2006). . appeared throughout the literature. The shift from traditional methods of instruction to more constructivist approaches will take time. However. With the influx of technology into K-12 classrooms. Changing the way teachers think and use technology tools to reach students at a higher level and providing more challenging tasks is fundamental to student success (Tomlinson.72 Summary Available technological infrastructures located in K-12 schools have seen substantial advancements. Teachers who lack confidence in technology integration are more likely to avoid integration of technology all together (Green.

The teachers participating in the study were regular education classroom teachers in one suburban school district feeder pattern in .73 CHAPTER 3: METHOD This mixed method study explored how teachers utilize educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement for students of all ability levels. number of hours of technology integration. Moderating variables. The researcher worked in collaboration with the school district technology department to identify 20 technology proficient teachers based on results obtained from the Texas Teachers STaR Chart. This mixed method study interviewed 20 technology proficient teachers to complete the qualitative section of the mixed method study. years teaching. The primary independent variable was methods and techniques teachers use to integrate online technology tools into the classroom. the study explored particular barriers to technology integration and specific pedagogical approaches associated with integration. The study was open to 400 technologically proficient teachers across the feeder pattern for completion of the quantitative section. the feasibility of the design. the data analysis. age. types of professional development. included gender. defined for the purpose of potential influences on dependent variables. the geographic location of the study. The study also explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. The primary dependent variable was active engagement within the classroom. and available resources. race. and the validity of the research. the data collection process. Chapter 3 provides an in-depth discussion of the research method used in this study’s research design. the instruments that will be used. Additionally.

Gay et al. Additionally. quantitative. The mixed method design gave value to both qualitative and quantitative data. Chulay. 2006). The researcher requested the participation of staff members in consideration of an average sample size. A mixed method study design was used to explore how teachers integrate online educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement among all students in the classroom. the researcher explored particular barriers to technology integration. A mixed method design was selected because the data collected allowed the researcher to examine themes in response to the research questions. Triangulation of the data was appropriate for this study because the researcher qualified quantitative data to explore . 2004.. Simon. 2004. 2006.74 north central Texas. however. Vollman.. Simon). 2006). & Arbour. and the researcher viewed the data equally to gain a deeper understanding of the research problem (Creswell. Gay et al. Research Method and Design Appropriateness Well-designed research can provide valid and reliable data that may lead to change (Rauen. Bridges.. The researcher explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. or mixed method approaches (Creswell.. Simon. 2006). The methodology for this study used a triangulation mixed method design (Creswell. Gay et al. the completion of surveys and interviews were voluntary. Research designs can be qualitative. 2004. 2008). Gay et al. The mixed method design allowed exploration of themes within different school cultures in comparison to one another. A mixed method design was appropriate for this study because the combination of the two designs led to a powerful mix (Creswell.

9-12). the researcher merged the data and analyzed the results to ascertain a better understanding of the research problem (Creswell. Gay et al. The research also used a quantitative design to explore what types of tools technologically proficient teachers use for student engagement in an academic setting. 7-8. The qualitative design allowed the research to examine and analyze various perspectives on the topic (Creswell.75 themes directly related to integration of educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement across three teacher populations (K-6.. Additionally.. 2006). Posing this question qualitatively provided the research with a more in depth understanding of how teachers actively engage students. The research also explored perceived barriers to technology integration using a qualitative design. Gay et al. Simon. Simon). 2006. 2006. the research explored how technologically proficient teachers use educational technology for active engagement among students academically. Simon. The data gathered from both the quantitative and qualitative research were analyzed to determine if the data yielded similar or dissimilar results (Creswell. With the qualitative design. 2004. 559). p. 2004. Collecting quantitative data allowed the research to analyze results in search of trends (Creswell. Gay et al. A qualitative approach was used to explore how technology proficient teachers effectively use technology for engaging students in the K-12 classroom. After data collection. a qualitative design was appropriate because it . 2006). This research study did not lend itself to a quantitative only design because quantitative research studies allow for researcher-controlled environments under research-controlled conditions and no part of this research study allowed for researchercontrolled environments..

2004). This mixed method research study unified qualitative and quantitative approaches into a single research archetype for corresponding application of both methods (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie). Simon. the researcher explored to find a central phenomenon. Gathering quantitative data allowed the research to explore two research questions: (a) What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration? and (b) What effect. if any.76 allowed exploration of two research questions: (a) How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology for active engagement among students in the K-12 classroom? and (b) What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement? While examining the research problem. Using a quantitative design for this research study was appropriate because quantitative designs require a literature review at the beginning of the study (Creswell. Qualitative research was appropriate to this study because the research focused on descriptions and explanations (Creswell. Gay et al. 2004). 2004. Exploration allowed the researcher to learn more from participants due to limited information located within the literature (Creswell. 2007. Teddlie (2005) noted that educational scholars usually recognize the . does the application type impact the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? Gathering quantitative data for this mixed method research study allowed examination of data to qualify to explore themes. The literature gathered helped the researcher understand gaps in the literature and provided direction for further research development. Research that uses mixed method research designs merges quantitative and qualitative methods into one research study (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie. 2006.. Hunt. 2004). 2006).

In its proposed state. To triangulate the data.77 necessity of using different data types to answer research questions accurately. The study was open to 400 technologically proficient teachers across the feeder pattern for completion of the quantitative section. Method This mixed method research study explored how teachers in one suburban school district feeder pattern in north central Texas integrate educational technology tools into the classroom to promote active academic engagement and if teaching practices and methodologies influence willingness to integrate such tools. math/science teachers. The interview instrument was . and language arts/social studies teachers to participate. The results of the pilot study were examined to determine instrument validity and reliability and to determine if either survey instrument needed revision. The pilot study included seven fifth and seven sixth grade teachers for the qualitative portion and 25 (5-6 grade) teachers for the quantitative portion from one intermediate school in one school district located in north central Texas. 2007). The teachers selected for the pilot study were randomly selected and were used because they were easily accessible. Mixed methods research has several advantages. in a mixed method approach the researcher views all available data in numbers and minimizes the weaknesses of individual designs (Hunt). The number of participants changed due to lack of participation among staff members within the school district. Finally. Using multiple methods of research helps the researcher see the problem from all sides (Hunt). the researcher allowed specials teachers. this mixed method study interviewed 20 technology proficient teachers to complete the qualitative section of the study. The research is strengthened is the first advantage (Hunt.

Data allowed for the challenge of existing theories and describe any phenomenon or themes discovered (Simon). the research questions were designed to explore how . As a result. 2006). Additionally. semi-structured interviews (see Appendix A) were administered on a volunteer basis to participating technologically proficient teachers in one school in one suburban school district in north central Texas. Research Questions The purpose of this mixed method study was to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. The pilot study data were collected and analyzed using a self-created interview instrument to test the reliability of the instrument and to make adjustments as needed. The interviews collected confidential data centering on the integration of technology tools to foster active academic engagement. The data were organized in a systematic fashion to keep the researcher focused on the research purpose and questions (Simon. the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. The research questions were written in such a way to allow the research to build upon theory and produce new theories (Simon).78 administered in a semi-structured face-to-face format that remained open for one week. The participants in the pilot study were not included in the actual study results. Individuals who did not complete the pilot study interview were eliminated from the pilot study. a structured survey instrument was administered using Survey Monkey® (see Appendix B) to the same set of teachers. For the pilot study. For the quantitative phase. The research also explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement.

does the application type impact the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? Each of the research questions open for exploration share a linkage to one another. Questions 2 through 4 examined will allow the researcher to examine the data from a different angle. In Research Question 1 the researcher examined how technologically proficient teachers incorporate technology tools to foster the learning environment on a daily or weekly basis. Research Question 2: What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement? Research Question 3: What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration? Research Question 4: What effect. if any. and any effects of technology integration. Four research questions will drive the study. either teacher led or student centered. the researcher will examine specific techniques or methods teachers use or do not use. It is important to examine the effect the application type has on the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active . potential barriers. The research questions that drove this study were: Research Question 1: How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology to engage students in the K-12 classroom? Technologically proficient teachers are defined as those teachers who know best instructional practices and integrate technology into the classroom one to five times per week.79 teachers integrate online technology tools within their classroom. To provide the school district with further recommendations on how to encourage the use of technology within the classroom.

Ha2: Technologically proficient teachers use a variety of Web materials. computer applications. The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses are as follows: H01: Technologically proficient teachers do not integrate a variety of computer applications and internet based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project based learning activities. and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration. Ha1: Technologically proficient teachers integrate a variety of computer applications and internet based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project based learning activities. It is imperative all students remain actively engaged to receive the most from their learning environment. administrative support. Hypotheses The hypotheses includes a null and an alternative hypothesis concerning what effect. if any.80 engagement. the application type impacts the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement. and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week. computer applications. H03: Technologically proficient teachers do not perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications). and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week. Ha3: Technologically proficient teachers perceive lack of resources (computers . H02: Technologically proficient teachers do not use a variety of Web materials.

It was important to examine each of these hypotheses in relation to how teachers integrate technology into their daily instructional routines. only 48 participants opted to participate. such as blogging and podcasting. Five participants from each building were randomly selected and all participants were solicited to partake in the research study. Because the number of participants was low and results of the pilot study. H04: The technology application type. In its proposed state. Population The population defined for the purpose of this study was limited to one feeder pattern in one school district located in north central Texas. In the actual study. and represent some characteristic . has an impact on a student’s level of academic engagement. the separate survey/interview instruments were merged into one instrument (see Appendix I). this mixed method study interviewed 20 technologically proficient teachers to complete the qualitative section of the study. The population was selected based on the convenience of teachers. administrative support.81 and computer applications). Ha4: The technology application type. convenient. The sample population was obtained using non-probability sampling. The researcher worked in collaboration with technology campus facilitators to identify technology proficient teachers in each building. Examining each hypothesis allowed the researcher and the school district to collaborate to provide more opportunities for teachers to integrate a variety of technologies into the curriculum with fewer barriers. Non-probability sampling was used because individuals were “available. such as blogging and podcasting has no impact on a student’s level of academic engagement. and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration.

and 9-12 grade teachers.82 the investigator seeks to study” (Creswell. The researcher requested the participation of staff members to ensure reliability and validity in consideration of an average sample size. The researcher obtained approval from the necessary school district personnel to conduct the study (see Appendix C). This population was selected based on convenience and the availability of teachers. In its proposed state. and represented technologically . 164). Sampling Frame The population defined for the purpose of this study was limited to one feeder pattern of K-12 regular education classroom teachers. the researcher sent a request to building principals who have elected to participate in the research study (see Appendix D). Once the study was approved. Non-probability sampling was selected because individuals were readily available. Each teacher was solicited to partake in the research study (see Appendix E). K-6 grade teachers. the study participants included 20 technologically proficient teachers in one suburban school district in North Central Texas for the qualitative portion and 400 technologically proficient teachers in the feeder pattern for the quantitative section. the researcher sent a general e-mail to staff members of each school (see Appendix E and Appendix F) notifying the participants of the research study and the need to complete the Informed Consent (see Appendix G) prior to granting survey access. however. 2004. convenient. The teachers participating in the study were regular education classroom teachers in one suburban school district feeder pattern in north central Texas. The triangulation of the data was measured using three populations of participants. p. Upon approval from the school district. interviews were voluntary. 7-8 grade teachers.

the qualitative sampling included fewer than 20 in the sample. The survey . Due to lack of participation. only 48 participants opted to participate in the actual study. and five participants from the high school level (9-12). Although the sample size was rather large in the proposed state. Quantitative Sampling Quantitative data was collected using non-probability sampling. 2004). Upon receipt of individual signed consent forms. participants were notified via email (see Appendix F). therefore. the researcher randomly selected and notified individuals (see Appendix F) to complete an online survey (Survey Monkey®). Qualitative Sampling Qualitative data was collected using non-probability sampling. five participants from the intermediate school level (56). To resolve this problem. the researcher merged the quantitative and qualitative instruments into one allowing all individuals to partake in both sections of the study. Once the researcher posted and opened the survey. five participants from the middle school level (7-8). the researcher randomly selected and notified individuals (see Appendix F) to complete the qualitative interview questions to obtain In the proposed state of the study. the sample population was obtained using non-probability sampling. the researcher randomly selected five participants from the elementary school level (K-4).83 proficient characteristics under exploration (Creswell. which adversely affected the purpose of gathering in-depth information about technology integration methods used to increase active academic engagement. The researcher provided individuals with a specific survey link. Upon receipt of individual signed consent forms.

The informed consent guaranteed human subjects the right to withdrawal from the study at any time during the study. and researcher contact information. the risk and benefits. which adversely affected the purpose of gathering in-depth information about technology integration methods used to increase active academic engagement. The use of e-mail was used to initiate contact. Due to lack of participation. the nature of the participation. and asked for written consent. Study participation was voluntary and teachers received an informed consent letter and authorization form (see Appendix G) describing the nature of the study. the researcher merged the quantitative and qualitative instruments into one allowing all individuals to partake in both sections of the study.84 was open for two weeks with one weekly reminder to all participants that the survey was open for completion. 2004). the right to withdraw and withhold information. 2004). The participants were asked to return a completed demographics questionnaire and the signed consent as proof of their voluntary involvement in the study. Informed Consent Informed consent is a statement that participants sign prior to participating in any research study (Creswell. The researcher informed prospective participants of the study (see Appendix G). the qualitative sampling included fewer than 400 in the sample. Participants were randomly assigned a code name to use on the demographics questionnaire and when taking the survey. they acknowledged participation in the study and understood their rights were protected (Creswell. Participants signed an informed consent form (see Appendix G) that explained the study. When participants signed the consent form. and request agreement to . the use of interview and secondary data. To resolve this problem.

By signing the informed consent form (see Appendix G). Signing of the consent form acknowledged that participants understood the nature of the study. participants understood they may decline to participate or withdraw from the study with no consequences.85 participate in the study at the beginning of data gathering interviews. and data would be stored in a secure and locked area in the researcher’s office for a period of 3 years and then will be destroyed. 2006). etc. The informed consent communicated to the participants that they would complete an electronic survey or interview and their participation was voluntary. Informed consent forms were delivered to campus secretaries or principals and were distributed to teachers. S02. Individuals were made aware that if they choose to withdraw from the study they could do so without penalty or harm. The informed consent presented the teachers with a clear understanding of what the research study entailed and any risks posed. Identity in this mixed method study was protected with pseudonyms to hide individual identities. permission must be granted to digitally record interviews. The researcher assigned individual teachers an alphanumeric number (S01. their identity would be kept anonymous. and how participant identities were kept confidential. potential risks. The researcher informed participants that their name would not be disclosed to any outside party with the potential of publication.) to represent individual schools (see .. Participants were protected from any harm that may have ensued from the research study under protection of confidentiality. and unwanted publicity. spare embarrassment. Confidentiality Confidentiality oftentimes involves using codes or pseudonyms in an attempt to conceal identities (Gay et al. participant was 18 years old or older.

A private home office provided a secure location for maintaining records. or any other research records that may contain a participant’s identity information. Each participant was assigned an alphanumeric number (P01. Each survey had blanks for participants to enter grade level and subject taught. No survey instruments required any teacher’s name. Geographic Location The participants’ work and residential locations are in a suburban community of Fort Worth.000 people. The data were collected on an individual basis. constructivism and behaviorism).e. The data was analyzed and will be stored for 3 years and then will be shredded. a password-protected computer housed interview conversations and e-mail recordings. The participants are located in one school district in a northern suburb of Fort Worth and are easily accessible by car. Fort Worth is a large metropolitan area located in north central Texas with approximately 535. notes. each school was letter coded (see Appendix H). All data was stored at all times to ensure privacy. Data Collection For this study. and questions related to theories (i.86 Appendix H). qualitative data was collected using semi-structured interviews consisting of open-ended questions (see Appendix A). A sample size of 20 was chosen for the . Each interview question was designed to avoid researcher bias and to encourage participants to answer the questions honestly. methods of technology integration. Finally. Keeping information private ensures that staff is not privy to interview conversations. however. frequency of technology integration. Texas. The study collected confidential data about the individual’s background information (demographic data). P02) that was asked in the survey upon completion to identify individual participants.

Because many members of the selected group chose not to participate. the researcher randomly selected and notified individuals (see Appendix F) to complete an online survey (Survey Monkey®). Upon receipt of individual signed consent forms. This low sample size may adversely affect the purpose of gathering in-depth information about technology integration methods used to increase active academic engagement. The survey was open for 2 weeks with one weekly reminder to all participants that the survey is open for completion. the study will included fewer than 400 in the sample.face interviews were used to .87 qualitative section. Feeder pattern employees from one school district were selected to help ensure homogeneous sampling. The researcher provided individuals with a specific survey link. Instrumentation The research instrumentation for this mixed method study used semi-structured face-to-face interviews and survey questions to gather data to measure how teachers integrate technology tools into their classrooms to promote active academic engagement. the anticipated population size was 400 K-12 teachers. The researcher has developed interview questions to help answer the research questions. The sample size of 400 individuals for the quantitative section and the feeder pattern employees was selected because of homogeneous sampling to include teachers in one school district to partake in the research. Face-to. The interviews consisted of 40 qualitative questions and 43 Likert-type scale questions for the quantitative section (see Appendix A and Appendix B) exploring how teachers integrate technology to promote active academic engagement and barriers keeping them from integrating technology into the curriculum. In the proposal state.

Research Question 4 examines constructivists and behaviorists teaching approaches and asks: What effect.88 gather responses to interview questions for the qualitative section and an online survey was made available to the feeder pattern teachers. The researcher has created four qualitative questions to help answer this question. Research Question 3: What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration? The researcher has developed five qualitative questions and five quantitative questions to help answer this question. either teacher led or student centered. Research Question 1: How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology to engage students in the K-12 classroom? Technologically proficient teachers will be defined as those teachers who know best instructional practices and integrate technology into the classroom one to five times per week. does the application type affect the level of technology integration into the classroom to . the spawning of potential new questions was designed from the results of the original questions. Each participant answered the same initial questions. Survey Instrument Development The researcher developed both a qualitative and quantitative instrument to administer to K-12 teachers. Finally. the researcher created a table aligning the research questions with the corresponding survey questions (see Appendix F). however. During development of the survey instruments. Research Question 2: What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement? The researcher has developed nine qualitative questions and ten quantitative questions to help answer this question. The researcher self-created the instruments because there was not a previously created one to answer the established research questions. if any.

7-8 grade teachers. 280). One threat to internal validity was mortality. settings. 2004. The threat to internal validity was eliminated because the researcher ensured a large sample (Creswell. Gay et al. p.89 promote active engagement? The researcher has developed eight quantitative and one qualitative survey questions to help answer this question. drawing conclusions from scores may be difficult” (Creswell. The triangulation of the data was measured using three populations of participants. and past and future situations” (Creswell. 325). Validity and Reliability Threats to internal validity “are problems that threaten drawing correct inferences that arise because of the experimental procedures or the experiences of participants” (Creswell. This method of triangulation was used across the feeder pattern for the quantitative section as well. 326). or methods of data collection in descriptions and themes in qualitative research” (Creswell. 2006). This study was preceded by a pilot study to test the validity and reliability of the survey instrument being used. “When individuals drop out during the experiment for any number of reasons. “Triangulation is the process of corroborating evidence from different individuals. Simon. p. p. the ability to make useful predictions from the results. and 9-12 grade teachers. The data was analyzed searching for common themes in responses. Validity was measured based on a well-designed study. alert participants. Using a mixed method design during the pilot study assisted in validating the research instrument. p. The research was validated using triangulation. 326). K-6 grade teachers. 2006. types of data. and information that is useful and adds to the body of knowledge.. 2002. Member checking . Threats to external validity are “problems that threaten drawing correct inferences from the sample data to other persons.

Pilot Study This study was preceded by a pilot study to test the validity and reliability of the survey instrument being used. “Participants are asked about many aspects of the study. such as whether the description is complete and realistic. the researcher used member checking. Member checking allowed the researcher to take the study back to participants and ask them to check the accuracy of the report. The researcher randomly selected 25 teachers from a local intermediate campus (due to convenience). 2006. The pilot study included seven fifth and seven sixth grade teachers for the qualitative portion and 25 (5-6 grade) teachers for the quantitative portion from one intermediate school in one school district located in north . & Airasian. and examined the results. and alert participants. and if the interpretations are fair and representative of those that can be made” (Creswell. p. p.. if the themes are accurate to include. 139). 2004. Gay. The researcher ensured reliability by avoiding unclear or ambiguous questions.). The researcher tested for equivalent-forms reliability. Mills. 2004). Using a mixed method design during the pilot study assisted in validating the research instrument. which is where two forms of the survey instrument produce similar scores from a single group of test takers (Creswell. 2004. having standard administration practices. 280). 2004. Internal consistency reliability was used in which each participant completed the study instrument (Creswell. administered two forms of the survey and interview instruments. Reliability means “dependability and trustworthiness” (Gay et al. Member checking is a process where the researcher asks study participants to check the accuracy (Creswell.90 was used to verify validity. 2006). In addition to triangulation. Gay et al.

it was triangulated to assess for validity. the researcher sent an e-mail to staff members at one local intermediate school in one school district located in north central Texas (see Appendix J). and language arts/social studies teachers Data Analysis Once the data was collected. Individuals who did not complete the pilot study interview were eliminated from the pilot study. The researcher opened the quantitative survey in Survey Monkey® for 1 week and conducted semi-structured face-to-face interviews for the collection of qualitative data. math/science teachers. There were nine . To triangulate the data. including specials teachers.91 central Texas. Both data sets underwent a computer-generated analysis using Survey Monkey®. Once individuals responded. The interview instrument was administered in a semi-structured face-to-face format that remained open for one week. math/science teachers. the researcher allowed specials teachers. it underwent preliminary analysis. The data was triangulated across the three populations. The teachers selected for the pilot study were selected randomly and were used because they were easily accessible. The participants in the pilot study were not included in the actual study results. The results of the pilot study were used to determine instrument validity and reliability and to determine if either survey instrument needed revision. Once the data was collected. Upon approval of the research study. the researcher randomly selected 14 fifth and sixth grade teachers (7 of each grade level) for the qualitative portion of the study and 25 (5th-6th grade) teachers for the quantitative portion. The researcher established a deadline for all interested individuals to reply. and language arts/social studies teachers to participate.

After exploration of the data. In the interpretations. The data was analyzed to find a variety of themes including ordinary. the data was examined to identify themes. analyzed for themes. Teachers responded to a Likert-type scale with never or very rarely. it underwent a preliminary exploratory analysis. Once the data was coded. often. limitations and future research possibilities were identified. and major and minor themes. 277-78).92 questions/statements on the quantitative survey tailored specifically toward assessment of the level of academic engagement. The data underwent analysis. the data were represented and interpreted. . the findings were reported. pp. hard-to-classify. The themes were layered to identify interconnected levels of themes (Creswell. rarely. and layered with interconnected themes. Once the data was coded. unexpected. A narrative discussion was used to explain the results and the findings were visually displayed using figures and tables comparing groups on the themes uncovered in the research. The interpretations contained references to the literature from past studies to show how the findings either support or contradict prior studies. and very often or always to assess student levels of academic engagement. “Interpretation means that the researcher steps back and forms some larger meaning about the phenomenon based on personal views and/or comparisons with past studies” (Creswell. After analysis. The qualitative and quantitative data underwent a computergenerated analysis using Survey Monkey®. 2004). 2004. sometimes.

25). The study included semi-structured interviews and collected confidential data in examination of the individual’s background information (demographic data). frequency of technology integration. The data was collected using semi-structured face-to-face interviews including open-ended questions for the qualitative section and a Likert-type scale survey for the quantitative section. constructivism and behaviorism). A mixed method study design was appropriate for this study because the researcher was seeking to discover how teachers implement technology tools to promote active academic engagement and potential barriers associated with those teachers who do not integrate technology tools to promote active academic engagement. Chapter 4 will discuss the results of the study. types of technology integration. methods of technology integration. 2006). and questions related to theories (i. . The data was collected on an individual basis. The methods to conduct a mixed method research study determining how teachers integrate technology tools into the classroom to promote active academic engagement may provide a rich source of data to understand why teachers do not implement technology into their curriculum. In case study research. p. “the questions are targeted to a limited number of events or conditions and their interrelationships” (Simon. 2006.e.93 Summary Qualitative research seeks to answer how or why questions (Simon.

reviewed the relevant literature. The purpose of the exploratory mixed method study was to understand how K-12 teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. Additionally. which included the early stages and advancements of educational technology. The purpose of Chapter 4 is to answer the research questions and provide the outcome of each research question through the data collection process and analysis procedures. Included in the literature review was also a discussion of the current state of knowledge and barriers to integration.94 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS The previous chapters have outlined the background of the study. Chapter 1 presented the research background and the principal nature of the study. education technology today. and alternative learning environments. Chapter 4 presents the results of how teachers integrate online educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. the literature review contained a discussion of the theoretical framework encompassing behaviorism and constructivism. which discussed the historical overview. the study explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. In addition. Chapter 4 describes the data gathered following the methodology outlined in Chapter 3. Chapter 3 provided a description of the mixed method design used in the study and the processes used to collect data. The research also explored particular barriers to technology integration. and the impact of using technology for learning. what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active . Academic engagement for this study was defined as students engaged in learning to acquire new content knowledge. Chapter 2 presented the literature review. and described the selected methodology for the study.

the actual study was conducted. Research Questions Each research question was tailored to either the qualitative or the quantitative portion of the research study. The first research question applied to the qualitative portion of the study. Research Question 2: What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement? Research Question 3: What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration? Research Question 4: What effect. Prior to the study. Research Question 1: How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology to engage students in the K-12 classroom? Technologically proficient teachers are defined as those teachers who know best instructional practices and integrate technology into the classroom one to five times per week. either teacher led or student centered. does Web-based application type impact the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? . Once the pilot study was completed and the survey instrument was realigned. The findings from the study supported either the null or the alternative hypothesis in relation to each research question. and particular barriers to technology integration.95 academic engagement. if any. a pilot study was conducted to assess the validity and reliability of the survey instrument designed to explore each research question. The question was.

the researcher created an online questionnaire that was placed into Survey Monkey™. Many teachers were not willing to conduct face-to-face interviews due to fear of getting into trouble for not using technology to the degree expected. Of the 25 teachers who returned consent forms. the researcher changed the instrument by streamlining the qualitative and quantitative instruments into one . The pilot study provided the researcher a guide to data collection for the actual study. Sixty teachers from one intermediate campus were solicited. Because of these discomforts. with 25 teachers returning consent forms. The quantitative instrument allowed the teachers to check the frequency in which they use specified technologies and identify constructivist or behaviorist teaching characteristics. for the final study. the participants did not feel comfortable completing face-to-face recorded interviews. however. The teachers completing the quantitative survey were sent a link to access and complete the survey using Survey Monkey™. only six teachers participated in the pilot study. The qualitative portion of the pilot study was expected to be conducted using semi-structured face-to-face interviews from the participants during a specified appointment time agreed upon by the researcher and the interviewee. 86). a pilot study was conducted to test the validity of the data collection instrument and ensure reliability of the instrument.96 Pilot Study Prior to the study. The teachers solicited for the qualitative portion were difficult to obtain due to the nature of the study. Cooper and Schindler (2003) stated. “A pilot test is conducted to detect weaknesses in design and instrumentation…” (p. Because of these discomforts. 11 elected to participate. validating the instrument. To accommodate the teachers and alleviate stresses placed on them by face-to-face interviews.

modifications of the instruments were made (see Appendix I). The quantitative portion of the pilot study used an online data collection tool to collect the participant responses. Next. Initially the researcher anticipated needing analysis of the data to make an informed decision regarding the design of the survey instrument. Duplicate questions were eliminated and similar questions were merged into one question. however. The pilot study was used to influence how to conduct the actual study and the data analysis procedure versus the data collected. The first reason was comfort level experienced by the interviewees. but yielded the same results regardless of the format. It was noted that several questions were asked multiple times in different formats. The results from the data collection process were to eliminate the face-to-face semi-structured interviews for two reasons. at the culmination of the pilot study and . The instrument was renamed from survey to questionnaire because it was used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. several participants expressed they would rather complete an online questionnaire much like the quantitative option. In the feedback from the pilot study participants. Teachers could complete the questionnaire at their leisure and teachers would not feel as though they were being placed on the spot. the instrument was placed into Survey Monkey™ and teachers were allowed a specified 2-week window to complete the questionnaire for the actual study. making them more user friendly. Data collected during the pilot study were eliminated from the actual study. which was transferred to an Excel spreadsheet that allowed the researcher to examine each question and response. Based on the results of the pilot study.97 instrument. A second reason for elimination was scheduling difficulties encountered with general education teachers and the researcher.

middle (7-8). The elementary and intermediate campuses included three campuses. Fourteen or 29% of the participants stated they had 1 to 5 years experience. The middle school campus had the lowest percentage of participants (N = 9%). two elementary and one intermediate. First. The high school (9-12) campus had the second largest percentage of participants (N = 23%). The elementary and intermediate (K-6) campuses had the largest number of participants (N = 68%). providing enough time to process the questions and accurately answer the questions according to their instructional beliefs and practices. the researcher chose not to analyze the data gleaned from the pilot study. teachers were allowed ample time to complete the instrument. however.98 further analysis of the question design. or a high school (9-12) teacher. Eighteen or . The purposes for leaving the questionnaire open for 2 weeks was twofold. an intermediate (5-6). The Study: Technology in the Constructivist Classroom Sixty-four teachers returned consent forms to participate in the study. When the researcher received all of the consent forms individual welcome letters were distributed via e-mail. Each participant indicated that they were an elementary (K-4). teachers were able to complete the questionnaire at their leisure within a 2-week window of time. Upon receipt of their individualized welcome letters. Each participant was welcomed to the study (see Appendix F) with a message sent to their preferred e-mail address as indicated on their consent form. The participants’ years of experience ranged from 1 year to 20 or more years. Secondly. Position and Years Experience Participants were asked to state their grade level and years of experience. only 48 chose to participate. the teachers could complete the survey at their leisure.

The remaining 14 participants were contacted via electronic messaging. . defined for the purpose of potential influences on dependent variables. however. only 2 or 4% had 20 or more years of experience. Seven or 15% of the participants had 11to 15 years experience. The primary dependent variables were active engagement and technology integration type within the classroom. data were missing from 16 participants. included gender. Each variable was analyzed with relationship to the associated research question and will be discussed throughout Chapter 4. Two of the 16 missing participants formally requested to opt out of the study. number of hours of technology integration. the participants were not obligated to participate nor were there any accountability factors to complete the questionnaire. Teachers with 6 to 10 years experience were the largest population. Moderating variables.99 38% of the participants stated they had 6 to 10 years experience. types of professional development. The primary independent variable was methodologies and techniques teachers use to integrate online technology tools into the classroom. Missing Data Of the 64 individuals who consented to participate in the study. making them the lowest two populations. race. and available resources. One participant did not report number of years experience. there was no response after five attempts. While 6 or 12% reported having 16-20 years experience. Because the study was voluntary. Several attempts were made to encourage participation from the 16 participants. years teaching. age.

the findings were reported. After the exploration of the data. The themes were layered to identify interconnected levels of themes (Creswell.” For the purpose of this study. The quantitative data was qualified to make the qualitative data richer to establish and explore themes. and use the results to best understand a research problem. merge the data. the qualitative and quantitative data were collected simultaneously. . Once the data were coded. “The purpose of a triangulation mixed method design is to simultaneously collect both quantitative and qualitative data. 2004).100 Data Analysis The data underwent an analysis using Microsoft Word and Excel for the qualitative section. the data were examined to identify themes. A hand analysis was preferred because the researcher was analyzing a small sample (48 members) and could easily keep track of files (Creswell. they were merged to define themes. A narrative discussion was used to explain the results and the findings were visually displayed using figures and tables comparing groups on the themes uncovered in the research when appropriate. The data were analyzed to find a variety of themes including ordinary. Once the two data sets were analyzed. and major and minor themes. hard-to-classify. Once the data were coded. First. unexpected. 2009). Three additional data points. Creswell (2004. it underwent a preliminary exploratory analysis. the qualitative data were analyzed then the quantitative data were analyzed to solidify the identification of themes obtained from respondents’ answers and to understand frequency of use. p. 564-65) stated. and layered with interconnected themes. Triangulation of the Data Triangulation is using three points of data (NWEA. analyzed for themes. 2004).

how technology tools are used.101 elementary and intermediate teachers (K-6). . respondents were asked to rank the questions in Table 1 with rarely/never. middle school teachers (7-8). This analysis also occurred within the context of the research literature review detailed in Chapter 2. To determine if a teacher was categorized constructivist or behaviorist. Study Findings Table 1 indicates the number and percentage of teachers who ranked their teaching styles as constructivism. and barriers teachers encounter with technology integration. and whole data analysis. and high school teachers (9-12). were analyzed and compared. sometimes. The teachers who responded sometimes or often/always were categorized constructivist. Once the three data analyses took place. thus categorizing them as constructivist teachers. Triangulation of the data was appropriate for this study because the researcher explored themes directly related to integration of online educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement in analysis segments that included qualitative data analysis. quantitative data analysis. the researcher examined the data in more detail across the three populations to examine techniques/methods technologically proficient teachers use. 46 (or 96%) indicated constructivist behaviors. Of the 48 participants surveyed. or often/always.

1% (1) 22. etc. I teach my content area to prepare my students to solve real-life problems.2% (2) 25.8% (34) 4.9% (11) 75% (33) 8.5% (18) 4. student explorations of the topic frequently precede formal presentation. 8. …spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding.3% (4) 54.102 Table 1 Constructivist Practices Question Students in my class… …spend time in small groups interpreting data and evaluating conclusions.1% (1) 0.2% (26) 37.2% (2) 41.3% (4) 41.0% (12) 70.0% (0) 97. Forty-eight regular education.3% (3) 68. Discussions in my class allow students to be actively engaged in asking questions and discussing it as necessary In my classroom. portfolios. …are encouraged to ask questions when I present new information.1% (13) 6.2% (26) Rarely/Never Sometimes Often/Always A demographic and school analysis of the participants produced a grouping of the five schools. …often learn content ideas from one another.7% (44) 2. I check how well students in my class understand new ideas by alternative assessment techniques such as presentations. including content specific areas such as .8% (33) 91.9% (47) 4.1% (1) 27.7% (20) 54.2% (2) 2.7% (20) 50% (24) 2.

Technologically proficient teachers use a variety of computer applications and Web-based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project-based learning activities. Qualitative data were . School C had the largest number of participants (N = 21). school C is an intermediate campus. School E had the third largest number of participants (N = 11). Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of participants across the five schools in one feeder pattern in north central Texas. Distribution of participants per school. school D is a middle school campus.103 drama and art. Research Question 1 Research Question 1 was designed to explore how technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology to engage students in K-12 classrooms. Schools A and B are elementary campuses. Schools B and D had the lowest participation (N = 4). Figure 1. true. participated in the study. Data results proved the alternative hypothesis. School A had the third highest number of participants (N = 8). and school E is a high school campus. Several themes were discovered with how teachers integrate technology tools into their classrooms to support problem.and project-based activities.

Respondents indicated other uses encompassing data manipulation. contacting field experts. and one high school respondent stated using technology tools to allow students the opportunity to research current events. and each respondent’s answer is illustrated in depth in Appendix M. Fourteen respondents (10 elementary and intermediate. One intermediate school respondent stated using technology tools for locating images. The projects theme included a variety of activities from publishing tools to student created projects and inventions. and 3 high school teachers) said they use technology tools in the classroom to support problem. projects and assignments. and differentiated instruction. three themes were discovered. all individual participant responses are outlined in detail in Appendix K. processing data. Following is a discussion of the qualitative data and connections to the related themes.and project-based activities through individual student research or online research. The themes included research. Following is a discussion of the themes that emerged. and design processes. Question 10 Qualitative Analysis When asked to describe how teachers use technology tools in the classroom to support problem. and presented.104 gathered. The research theme encompassed several components. analyzed. One intermediate school respondent reported . followed by a quantitative analysis. The themes were developed through analysis of the qualitative data. one high school teacher stated using technology tools to allow students to complete Webquests that usually included a degree of depth and research. Each theme is presented in order of significance. The data were then merged to determine themes to answer the research question. 1 middle school.and project-based activities.

One elementary school respondent stated using technology tools to differentiate instruction. These teachers also indicated they allow students to use FLIP video cameras to allow students opportunities to design and create their own video productions. one high school respondent allows students to use technology tools to help them process data. Additionally. Teachers said the online . Teachers reported using technology tools to support problemand project-based activities through a variety of formats. Differentiation is a key component to effective instruction for students in K-12 schools (Tomlinson. one middle school. including presentations and brochures. Three elementary school respondents and one high school respondent indicated using technology tools for online games. mainly differentiation of products from students. two intermediate school respondents stated they use computer programs to create and publish material.105 using technology for group work and collaboration for filming various projects. and one intermediate school respondent said they allow students to create a variety of projects and new inventions using technology tools. Two middle school respondents also indicated they allow students to use technology tools to create PowerPoint presentations within various content areas and subject matter. One high school respondent allows students to use technology tools to create CDs and PowerPoint presentations. 1999). and online Websites to reinforce learning. interactive websites for tutorial purposes. Elementary and intermediate school participants identified this theme more. Two high school. One intermediate school respondent also indicated using various Office tools such as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint to differentiate instruction and allow student choice for differentiation of products. One high school teacher reported using technology tools to incorporate science probes and a variety of software applications for labs.

and one high school teacher allows students to use graphing calculators. and high school campuses (9-12). Figure 2 illustrates each of the themes and frequency.and project-based activities. middle school campuses (7-8). Figure 3. Figure 3 indicates the frequency of themes within identified populations including. elementary and intermediate campuses (K-6). One high school respondent stated using technology tools for design process. Figure 2. Question 10 Quantitative Analysis Question 10 asked teachers to describe how technology tools are used in the classroom to support problem.106 Websites were interactive and allowed students to acquire new content knowledge and reinforce existing content knowledge. Additionally. allowing students to complete the seven-step design process for engineering. Themes and frequency of technology use. Themes and frequency of of technology use at specified grade levels. . one middle school respondent stated using interactive white boards for content review.

The second highest use was other computer related activities including.107 Further analysis indicates the largest use is with internet research. but not limited to. scavenger Hunts.5% 45 out of 47 43 out of 48 42 out of 48 41 out of 48 40 out of 47 39 out of 47 35 out of 48 33 out of 48 29 out of 45 Number of Teachers Approximately 95% of the teachers indicated they use the internet as a tool to keep students actively engaged. followed by differentiated instruction.5% 85.7% 89. video streaming. The third highest use was interactive Web tools including interactive Websites and webquests. The next highest usage was collecting internet images and video clips.7% 64.4% 85. The bottom four included presentation software (i. and . online research and games.9% 68. Table 2 Most Used Technology Type and Frequency Technology Type Frequency % Internet Computer Related Activities Interactive Web Tools Internet Images/Video Clips Publishing Software Presentation Software Video Streaming Scavenger Hunts Spreadsheets 95.e.1% 83% 72. Table 2 illustrates the most used applications to keep students actively engaged for the acquisition of content knowledge.6% 87. Microsoft PowerPoint). The next highest use was with projects and assignments.

movie clips. Question 9 asked participants to describe any other technology tools they use to keep students actively engaged to acquire content knowledge. video clips. projectors. Four themes surfaced including. District purchased resources and software included infant simulators. online tools. library desktops. conference . regular and graphing calculators and software. probeware. lab tools. Question 9 Qualitative Analysis Online tools included video streaming. and an active response system. computer games. and other resources. district purchased resources and software. online PowerPoints. One intermediate school respondent stated the use of open-ended questioning techniques that lead students to online research. Two middle school respondents stated they use active expressions where the students can text in answers. Additionally. One elementary teacher identified the use of video streaming and online supplemental material that accompanies the current math adoption allowing students to access course content at any time. one middle school respondent reported the use of lab tools. interactive Websites. All participant responses are outlined in Appendix M. Lab tools included microscope mounted cameras. The quantitative and qualitative data sets support each other with the identified themes of how teachers integrate technology tools into the curriculum to engage students with project. document cameras.108 spreadsheets.and problem-based projects. One intermediate school respondent stated using interactive Websites and video streaming. lab tools. laptops. and online supplemental materials and resources. Microsoft Office suite software. Following is a discussion of the qualitative analysis followed by quantitative analysis. digital cameras.

109 call software on speakerphone. One intermediate school respondent reported using calculators to engage students academically. and one elementary respondent reported using tape recorders and other listening devices to listen to stories or textbook selections that are read aloud. One elementary respondent identified the use of digital cameras to take pictures of students while they work collaboratively completing various activities. One high school respondent uses technology tools and software allowing students to create DVDs. Other resources included a variety of tools. library desktops. one intermediate school respondent allows students to use PowerPoint software for the production and presentation of new content knowledge. followed by online tools. One elementary school respondent allows students to use a variety of Microsoft Office suite software. One high school teacher stated the main use of technology is with PowerPoint presentations. Question 9 Quantitative Analysis The quantitative data collected identified the same themes noted by the qualitative data. One intermediate school respondent stated using document cameras. both teacher and student created. tape recorders. Additionally. and mobile devices. One intermediate school respondent reported using cellular devices to keep students actively engaged. One high school respondent stated students use real life tools and equipment to complete projects to build real projects. Lab tools were the . and conference calls on speakerphones allowing students to make contacts with field experts. and Leapfrog devices. One intermediate school respondent reported using laptops. Further analysis of the data indicates that the largest population using available technology is in the elementary and intermediate campuses where most of the teachers reported using district purchased materials.

independent practice opportunities. video streaming. Only elementary and intermediate respondents indicated the use of online tools. Qualitative Analysis For the qualitative data collection of research question two. The largest numbers of teachers use Web-based technologies. assessment. district purchased software. wikis. images. video/movie making websites/tools. gathering of information as needed by students. online videos. daily researching . The qualitative analysis is discussed followed by the quantitative analysis. internet Websites. Research Question 2 Research Question 2 was designed to explore what techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement. true. classroom Websites. viewing of websites through the classroom projector. Technologically proficient teachers fail to use a variety of Web materials. movie-making software. Web-based technologies encompasses the following items: research. podcasts. mind-mapping software. Appendix L outlines each respondent’s answer when asked to describe how he or she integrates the listed items into the curriculum to keep students actively engaged to acquire content knowledge or skills. . and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week. For the purpose of this study. computer applications. practicing skills.110 third most used and were equally reported from middle and high school respondents. and personally purchased programs to keep students actively engaged. staying informed. respondents were asked to describe how they use Web-based technologies. The data indicates the alternative hypothesis. blogging.

researching. nothing is computer generated. and educational games. use of Smartboard to complete Web-based activities. “I use blogs for tips and techniques and for teaching students how to produce their own blog sites. Teachers questioned indicated there is very little use of blogging. allowing students to practice or reinforce existing knowledge and acquire new knowledge. variety of learning websites. One of the five teachers stated they use mind-mapping. daily Web-based exercises and quizzes. building on prior knowledge. tutorials/remediation. making it an interactive discussion. “Students use Gaggle. Teachers indicated using interactive Websites for tutorial purposes. collecting images and videos. and watching videos to enhance a lab experience. Thirty of the 48 teachers reported using Web-based technologies for purposes including.” Another intermediate school respondent said. and Webquests.111 communication. Five of the 48 teachers question reported that they use mind-mapping software. Respondents also stated using Interactive Websites for graphing data. The other four respondents indicated they use mind-mapping software for concept mapping of content specific topics. . staying informed and communication.” One intermediate school respondent said. Webquests. Three of the 48 teachers questioned reported using blogs to keep students actively engaged. video and movie making websites and tools. making the data unusable. student research. One high school respondent said. “I use blogs to allow students to communicate with one another. In Gaggle the teacher posts a question and the students respond. graphing data. practicing concepts.” Teachers questioned indicated there is very little use of mind-mapping software use occurring. however.

“I allow students to produce performances. it was discarded. Twenty-four teachers reported using video streaming. “I do not currently use podcasts.” Another high school respondent stated. “Students use this to record some of their personal writing. activate background knowledge. Three teachers indicated they also use components of the Discovery Learning™ video streaming site to evaluate or assess student knowledge and performance. Websites to enrich lessons. “I use podcasting for interviews and recording of products created to show understanding of topics taught. Twenty-one teachers indicated using video streaming to supplement concepts being taught. etc. locating images. introduce new material. “I use podcasts for audio books. Fifteen of the 26 teachers stated they use internet Websites for researching.” One intermediate school respondent said. or reteach old material. interviews. Six of the 48 teachers indicated they use podcasts.” One high school respondent stated.” While one intermediate school respondent said.” Because the data did not indicate current student usage. gathering background knowledge to make real world connections. content specific Websites. and differentiated instruction.112 Twenty-six teachers reported using internet sites. I allow students to listen to authors read their own work. “I use podcasts for viewing and learning from the experts. but would like to for podcasting performances that are filmed. Other uses included. making it an unproductive use. “I use podcasts for individualized lectures. with podcasts” and a middle school respondent said. tutorial sites. One elementary school respondent said. .” Zero teachers indicated they use wikis. One intermediate school respondent said. Several teachers indicated they do not use wikis because they are blocked by the district filter. locating current events for science class.

Thirteen teachers indicated they use district purchased software to keep students actively engaged. “I use district purchased lab materials. and assignment details. and infomercials. making morning announcements for the school. and a fourth high school teacher said.113 Ten of the 48 teachers questioned reported they use movie-making software. and editing movies to prove understanding of particular content related topics. only five indicated they use it for student engagement of any type. filming. “I use Final Cut Pro for Macs. One intermediate school respondent stated. All of the respondents indicated they use movie-making software to allow students to edit films or commercials and other video projects. The five teachers who reportedly use their district created Website for student engagement said they use it for providing necessary vocabulary. infomercials. classroom yearbooks.” A third high school teacher indicated use of the Smartboard. learning links. Seventeen teachers indicated they use their district purchased classroom Website. commercials that parody ideas or concepts from literature. presentations.” One high school respondent said. of those 17.” and another high school respondent said. creation of personal videos to learn about video production. and the use of FLIP cameras to make mini films. and to create clay animations. project rubrics. interviews. “I use BrainPop and Discovery Learning. product choices. Twelve teachers indicated the primary use of their district created Website was for communicating to parents. writing. however. Avid for PCs for video production. Other reported uses of movie-making software include student movies to show sequence of stories or events in history.” Teachers in the elementary and . editing performance. “I use CADD design programs and other programs that are specific to my content area.

Quantitative Analysis Figure 4 represents the technology type used and the number of teachers who use each technology type. Figure 4. and differentiated instruction to allow students to work on their targeted weaknesses. various software and programs for academic support of concepts and skills. Number of teachers who use specified tools. . Of the 48 teachers questioned. calculators and science software to build student understanding of technology. 4 said they use personally purchased programs to engage students. however.114 intermediate school reported using Inspiration for thinking maps. “I purchased and use Vlog for classroom newscasts and a variety of dissecting software for science. while two other teachers indicated the use of Web-based items they have personally purchased. many teachers could not respond to items such as wikis and blogging because they have limited use with these application types. and to supplement classroom projects.” One teacher indicated the use of free items that are Web-based. One middle school respondent said. Forty-eight participants were asked the same questions.

and training. and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration. very few teachers indicated the use of blogging. accessibility of the resources. however. Appendix M provides each participants’ response to the statement. less than half of the teachers surveyed indicated usage of the websites for academic engagement purposes. The internet websites were used mainly for research and gathering of new information. Research Question 3 Research Question 3 was designed to explore what technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration. The themes noted were resources (lack of or unreliable). lack of space. Qualitative Analysis The theme of resources encompasses a variety of factors: funding. lack of available software. podcasts. and tech . mind-mapping software. unorganized resources. administrative support. true. Technologically proficient teachers perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications). These 30 teachers indicated high usage of video streaming and internet websites. While valuable tools provided by the district. wikis. lack of resources. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data indicated several themes when participants were asked to describe any barriers encountered in the integration or acquisition of technology within the curriculum. inconsistency with the resources. The null hypothesis. student/teacher delays. All teachers in the district have a classroom website. time. reliability of the resources. Describe any barriers you have in the integration or acquisition of technology within your curriculum. and personally purchased programs.115 As noted in Figure 4. 30 teachers indicate the use of web-based technologies. movie-making software.

” One elementary respondent indicated there was not enough preparation time. making technology integration difficult. the respondents indicated a range of responses from limited to various types of training. Similarly. One elementary school respondent said. one elementary school respondent indicated there was limited teacher knowledge. “Time is an issue. Additionally. When asked to identify barriers to technology integration. Only K-6 teachers expressed funding as a barrier. Two teachers said they placed tickets in the help desk system and the response time was approximately three months to get the equipment fixed. Many teachers indicated they operate in a single computer classroom. There is not enough time to grasp technology skills or adequate time to appropriately plan lessons. the middle school teachers (7-8) indicated their only barrier was resources. Seven of the 48 teachers interviewed identified student and teacher delays as a barrier to technology integration. which encompassed working equipment and number of resources. six teachers identified time as a barrier. Some of the trainings described include frequent classes on a variety of programs or software programs. One high school respondent said. Podcasting. “Students have developmental delays.” One intermediate school respondent indicated there was difficulty in integrating things other than videos or podcasts because of developmental delays. Two other respondents simply indicated time as an issue. When asked to describe the types of technology trainings the school district provides and how often.116 support. Several teachers indicated a frustration with the system of the help desk. Another barrier indicated was lack of equipment and the necessary internet drops to wire the existing equipment. annual updates. Promethean .

teacher delays. further exploration of the time barrier. curriculum training. and training. e-mail. 37 responded. K-6 teachers indicated student or teacher delays as a barrier. basic computer skills. and if teachers have a classroom website. the types of technology training the school district provides and how often. online grade book. new teacher training. updates. Time was and training were the two barriers least affecting technology integration. the amount of time teachers spend integrating technology into the classroom. teachers feel they receive limited training on available technologies and integration ideas. the percentage of assignments requiring the use of technology during each grading period. Quantitative Analysis Quantitative data were collected for further exploration regarding each of the following: how many computers are located within each classroom. Identified barriers included resources. As noted in Figure 5. resources were the largest barrier. KConnect.117 software. and new technology purchased. the percentage of students teachers felt could select the most appropriate technology tool for a given task. Across all populations. Additionally. Figure 5 indicates the frequency of training teachers reportedly receive. . Smartboards. time. Two respondents stated they have to hunt for available training and usually do not because they do not have time to search for professional development opportunities. Three teachers identified training as a barrier to technology integration. Of the 48 participants. Websites.

. 3-4 computers per room) than those teachers located in the intermediate school (5-6). Many teachers indicated they had only one working computer in their classroom. Few teachers indicated they had student computers and if they did have student computers they were sparse.118 Figure 5. When teachers were asked how many computers they have in their classroom.e. the data indicated teachers had between 1 and 30 computers in a classroom. Amount of technology training received. and 9-12). Classrooms that reported 30 computers also noted the 30 computers were shared among five teachers. Figure 6 depicts the number of computers in each classroom while Figure 7 shows the number of computers in each classroom at each level (i.e. 7-8. Further analysis of the data shows that teachers in K-4 are more likely to have student computers (i. which was often indicated as the teacher workstation. K-6.

When teachers were asked what percentage of their students were capable of selecting the most appropriate technology tool for a given task (Question 4). Number of computers in classrooms at specified grade levels. Many of the schools are equipped with only one computer. Further analysis among the combined data between K-4 and 5-6 indicates that the 5-6 campuses operate six times as many classrooms on single computers as K-4 counterparts. Figure 7. mainly located at the K-6 level.119 Figure 6. Further evidenced through data. as reported by teachers. followed by 76-100% (n = 13 teachers). the numbers varied from 0% to 100%. Number of computers in classrooms. Only nine teachers felt 51-75% of their students could choose . the middle school level operates many classrooms with zero to two computers in a classroom. where the K-4 teacher data shows they have four times as many as the 5-6 teachers. with two being the maximum number of computers in a classroom. Evidenced as well is the unequal numbers with three or more computers in a room. The largest number of teachers feel their students could choose the most appropriate technology tool 26-50% (n = 15 teachers) of the time.

Question 6 asked participants what percentage of the assignments or projects each grading period require the use of technology. Double the number of teachers at the high school feel their students can choose appropriate technology tools 51-75% (n =4) of the time versus 76100% (n = 8). at every level. More teachers. Further analysis indicates the largest number of teachers that feel their students could choose the correct technology tool 0-50% of the time (n = 17 teachers). Fifteen teachers agreed while 33 disagreed. Further analysis indicates this is the trend across all grade levels. Question 5 asked participants if they agree or disagree with the following statement: I do not have enough time to integrate technology into my classroom with all of the other things I have to accomplish in the curriculum. On K-6 campuses. . disagree that they do not have time to integrate technology into their curriculum. Figure 8 indicates the number of assignments or projects assigned across all grade levels while Figure 9 indicates the number of assignments specific to each grade level. Respondent answers ranged from 0% to 95%.120 the appropriate technology tool and seven teachers believed 0-25% of the students could choose the appropriate technology tool. almost twice as many teachers disagree than agree.

followed by 76-100%. 45 teachers answered the following question: Each grading period ___% of the assignments or projects requires the use of technology. Percentage of assignments requiring technology tools at specified grade levels. The largest number of the respondents was contained within the K-6 level. The middle school and high school campuses have equal representation with technology integration less than 3 hours per week. In the middle school. the . and 51-75%. In comparison. Of the teachers questioned.121 Figure 8. Percentage of assignments requiring technology tools. half of the respondents integrate technology at least 3 hours per week. 34 of the teachers responded that 0-25% of the assignments each nine weeks involve the use of technology tools. Figure 9. Teacher at the high school level equally answered that 76-100% and 26-50% of the assignments during each grading period require the use of technology. Of the 45 that answered the question. Six teachers indicated they felt that only 26-50% of their assignments each grading period required the use of technology.

Further analysis indicates overall usage is almost equal between less than 3 hours per week. Research Question 4 Research Question 4 was designed to explore what effect. and more than 3hours per week. if any. At the middle school. and that data represented usage for mainly communication purposes. . Although respondents indicated they have district provided Web pages. Of the 48 teachers questioned.122 elementary and intermediate school teachers indicate they integrate technology applications or computers less than 3 hours per week. The data indicated that 28 teachers do have a Web page. at least 3 hours per week. while 20 respondents indicated they did not have a Web page. 15 reported integrating technology into the classroom to engage students more than 3 hours per week. previous data indicated only 16 teachers use the pages. only one teacher indicated nonuse of the district provided Web page. High school teachers indicated an equal number of teachers who do and do not use their district provided Web page. Table 3 outlines the Web-based application types examined during the study. does Web-based application types have on the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement. Teachers were asked if they have a teacher Web page or not. rather as a communication tool to reach parents and students. Earlier data indicated teachers do not use their classroom Web pages for instructional purposes. The respondents located on K-6 campuses indicated more use than nonuse of the district provided Web pages.

scavenger hunts.4% (5) 6. scavenger hunts. or blogging.3% (28) 14.3% (15) 79.6% (7) 14. podcasts. and blogging were the four areas of Webbased applications examined during this study.8% (46) 31. As indicated in Table 3.6% (7) 2.1% (1) 10. Similarly. podcasts. only 58. a large percentage of teachers reported never or rarely using wikis. and blogging no conclusions could be drawn to determine if these application types had any impact on student engagement.3% (3) 0% (0) Never/Rarely Sometimes Often/Always Wikis.3% of the teachers reported that they sometimes use scavenger hunts to promote active engagement. Because the data is conclusive that the majority of the teachers surveyed do not use Web-based applications such as wikis.2% (38) 85.123 Table 3 Web-Based Application Type and Usage Reported Web-based applications Wikis Scavenger Hunts Podcasts Blogging 95. .4% (41) 2.1% (1) 58. podcasting.

Sixty-four participants consented to share their experiences with the use and integration of educational technology tools to promote active engagement among their students. which included high school teachers.124 Summary of Findings The purpose of this mixed method study was to explore how K-12 teachers use educational technology tools to engage students. which included elementary and intermediate school teachers. Differentiation instruction is a . Many teachers reported using computer applications and Web-based activities for research. blogging. grades 7-8. only 48 participated. The data was triangulated across K-6 grades. however. quantitatively. wikis. The data gathered from Research Question 1 indicated teachers use a limited variety of computer applications and Web-based activities in the classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project and problem-based learning activities. which included middle school teachers. and as a whole. however. Four research questions drove the study. and online scavenger hunts. The data were gathered. These populations were selected because they were accessible and the researcher wanted to use the study to explore how teachers across various grade levels integrate educational technology tools. All data sets were examined qualitatively. Several themes were encompassed in this finding. and triangulated across three populations of teachers. projects and assignments. analyzed. A little over 95% of the teachers indicated they use the internet as a tool to keep students actively engaged. Three of the four questions were answered. the researcher was unable to answer research question number four due to a lack of teachers who frequently integrate Web-based technology tools such as podcasting. and differentiated instruction. and grades 9-12.

Further analysis of the data indicated that the largest population using available technology is in the elementary and intermediate campuses where most of the teachers reported using district purchased materials. and watching videos to enhance a lab experience. allowing students to practice or reinforce existing knowledge and acquire new knowledge. Lab tools were the third most used and were equally reported from middle and high school respondents. and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week. computer applications. Additional analysis indicated the largest use is with internet research. lab tools. collecting images and videos. 1999). and elementary and intermediate school participants identified this theme more. and educational games. researching. Sixty three percent of the teachers reported using Webbased technologies for purposes including. About 20% of the teachers . staying informed and communication. district purchased resources and software. followed by online tools. and mind-mapping were reported. and differentiated instruction. Respondents also stated using Interactive Websites for graphing data.and project-based activities through a variety of formats. Very little use of blogging. and other resources. video and movie making websites and tools. Webquests. The data indicated that technology proficient teachers use a variety of Web materials. Data also indicated participants use technology tools for online tools. Research Question 2 was designed to explore what techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement. followed by projects and assignments.125 key component to effective instruction for students in K-12 schools (Tomlinson. Teachers reported using technology tools to support problem. podcasting. Teachers indicated using interactive Websites for tutorial purposes.

Quantitative data were collected further exploring each of the following: how many computers are located within each classroom. Web-based application types have on the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement. Wikis. time. the percentage of assignments requiring the use of technology during each grading period. Research Question 4 was designed to explore what effect. podcasts. Research Question 3 was designed to explore what technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration. student/teacher delays. podcasting. many teachers indicated they operate in a single computer classroom. and blogging were the four areas of Web-based applications examined during this study. very few teachers indicated use of the site for purposes other than parent communication. how often teachers felt students could select the most appropriate technology tool for a given task. scavenger hunts. and training. and blogging no conclusions could be drawn to determine if these application types had any impact on student engagement. if any. Because the data is conclusive that the majority of the teachers surveyed do not use Web-based applications such as wikis. scavenger hunts. Additionally. The themes noted were resources (lack of or unreliable).126 indicated the use of movie-making software to provide active engagement opportunities. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data indicated several themes when participants were asked to describe any barriers encountered in the integration or acquisition of technology within the curriculum. the types of technology training the school district provides. . Even though the school district provides all teachers with a classroom website.

The data collected from the research study are a foundation that can help the school district officials and campus leaders prioritize where individual campuses currently are with regard to integration of educational technology within the curriculum to engage students. Chapter 5 includes recommendations for campus leaders including principals. teacher leaders. .127 The following chapter reexamines themes that emerged from the participants’ experiences as outlined in the current study. and classroom teachers. instructional technology personnel. school district officials.

2008).128 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this mixed method research study was to explore how K-12 teachers use educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement among students. word processing. 2003). A variety of methods is available to assist teachers with the implementation of technology tools into the classroom. publishing tools.. and a variety of educational software. Reportedly. changing the way teachers teach and children learn takes time. Teachers realize conversations occur. Constructivist theorists note the emphasis on the students whereby the teacher becomes the facilitator (Correiro et al. Teachers with constructivist teaching practices engage students at higher and more academically engaging levels than behaviorist teachers. Many students feel disconnected from their curricular courses (Prensky). children are bored in schools (Prensky. Two theoretical models guided this research study. Additionally. as a result. Behaviorists believe that a person’s cultural and sub cultural conditioning molds individual personalities (Barnett. constructivism and behaviorism. eliminating lectures. wikis. Weblogs. podcasts. databases. these conversations allow knowledge to be acquired through social processes and allow the presentation of new dialogue as a starting point rather than an ending point (Richardson). 2006). allowing learning to occur far beyond the classroom doors (Richardson. In addition. Teachers can use instructional software ranging from mind mapping. Power Point for presentations. . teachers are realizing the potential of the World Wide Web. 2008). and vodcasts are methods some teachers use to transform the curriculum.

The literature review discussed two theories and multiple studies to support integration of technology into K-12 classrooms in an effort to engage students. 2004). limited research is available in K-12 schools (Bonk & Graham. In addition. 2006). virtual learning environments.129 Some teachers have also explored social learning where students are able to learn from others. who still prefer behaviorist approaches because they are reliable and structured. Chapter 2 presented a gap in the literature concerning the lack of technology integration in K-12 classrooms. or podcasts (Munshi. 2007). The literature review also discussed extensive research studies that emphasize technology . Current research discusses the use of available technologies. the use of educational technologies is a new method of instruction that needs further study to examine the effectiveness on student learning (Askun. Similarly. 2007). Watson. The research is vastly popular in the business sector and in higher education. Using technology in the classroom is one method presently used to begin a shift from traditional methods of instruction to more constructivists –compatible instruction (Matzen & Edmunds. however. There are teachers. Chapter 1 emphasized the importance of teachers transforming instructional methods to more constructivist approaches. 2006. resistance to change is one barrier preventing an empirical shift from behaviorism to constructivism. 2004). There was also an emphasis on the fact that technology research can change the teaching and learning approaches in classrooms and a technology-enriched curriculum may be designed to equip twenty-first century students to become both critical thinkers and leaders (Yazon. however. however. wikis. typically through the computer in the form of blogs. the transition from tools to active engagement is nonexistent.

The research findings indicated that teachers frequently use a small variety of technology tools including. This chapter also addresses implications to leadership and conclusions of how teachers integrate technology into their classrooms to engage students to acquire content knowledge. internet images and video clips related to their curriculum. PowerPoint presentations. and interactive Web tools.130 tools already integrated into K-12 classrooms and noted the minimal existence of research addressing effective use of technology tools to promote active academic engagement for all students in K-12 classrooms. Chapter 4 presented the results and themes discovered in relation to each research question presented. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected simultaneously. and holistically searching for themes in the data. limitations. quantitatively. Chapter 3 discussed the mixed method design using data triangulation for data gathering and analysis. Additionally. . Chapter 5 contains the conclusions and recommendations based on the findings and the data analysis of the study. there is a discussion of the interpretation of the data. the qualitative data was analyzed. such as gaming Websites. The data were then compared across multiple grade level populations. Triangulation occurred when both data sets were examined qualitatively. First. Additional data collected validated that teachers use a limited variety of technology tools in their curriculum to engage students in the acquisition of content knowledge. The literature review noted the focus embedded in utilizing technology tools as extension activities provided for some students. and significance of the study to leadership. internet. followed by the quantitative data.

The school district also encounters difficulties with replacement of resources. the school district is examining how to divide the state technology funding for upcoming years. district wide implementation of teacher Web page use may be necessary to provide further student engagement opportunities. personal communication. Funding is a significant barrier to adequate technology integration. and district personnel have had to rely on the majority of the funding for the operation of the entire technology department. Teachers from across grade levels reported lack of working resources as a barrier to overcome for effective and seamless integration of technology into the curriculum. 2009). Approximately 6 years ago. Each teacher across the school district is supplied with a district designed Web page.131 Interpretations of the Data Results Teachers who reported using a variety of technology tools in their classroom also reported technology integration into their classrooms at least 3 hours per week. Doing this allows students the ability to access curriculum related materials and enrichment opportunities. with bond money. The same teachers also indicated they use a classroom Web page. The current state funding appropriates $3 per student and the school district receives an additional $27 from the state. Many teachers reported using the classroom Web page for communication or housing of necessary materials. Therefore. the technology budget was adequate and there was a 5-year replacement cycle for classroom computers and a 3-year replacement cycle for secondary computer labs (Joe Griffin. The lack of resources within the school district is significantly related to the lack of funding. . however. February 25. using the Web page for communication purposes only limits opportunities to engage students academically. Presently.

S. however. Such tasks include communicating through a variety of media and formats. In response to the findings in technology research. The benefits of allowing students to use technology tools for higher levels of academic engagement may eventually lead to higher test scores and better preparation for using twenty-first century learning skills. understanding and knowing . and a necessity for effective integration of existing technology tools. compiling. the range of integration methods is minimal. drawing conclusion and making generalizations. Successful technology integration must be supported. and synthesizing information. The primary areas of integration included. Department of Education in combination with the Milken Exchange on Educational Technology and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) designed the National Education Technology Standards for Students (NETS) (McNamara. students have limited opportunities to be actively engaged at higher levels. some felt the trainings needed to be advertised more frequently. a priority. 2004). Increasing support levels from administration at both the campus level and central office level does not necessarily result in a positive implementation of change. the U. Therefore.132 The teachers surveyed indicated there is some district support with training opportunities. organizing. and equitable across all grade levels. basic and complex problem solving. internet research. analyzing. however. The NETS illustrates the importance of students being prepared to complete a variety of tasks using technology. Teachers must believe technology integration is important. and interactive Websites used for a variety of purposes. The most important finding in the study is the discovery that teachers do integrate technology tools into their classrooms. monitored. internet usage. Teachers from all grade levels indicated a need for additional resources or simply reliable resources.

Conclusions and Interpretations According to Cuban (1993). collaborating with team members. becoming self-directed learners. More constructivist practices include student-centered instruction. to understand the impact of technology on schools. Secondly is that technology tools will be used to help teachers reshape traditional methods and replace them with constructive practices (Cuban). and appropriate ways (McNamara). While many factors affect and shape teacher behaviors. and a technology-enriched curriculum can be designed to help equip twenty-first century students to become both . educators began to realize teachers had to change how they teach to accommodate the methods and situations in which students best learn. it is vital to analyze processes of technology integration versus outcomes of the integration (McNamara). all components of the twenty-first century learner skills students need to be productive in real world situations. and inquiry-based learning. The first reason is the fear that without the necessary tools in schools. students will not be competitive in the job market. ethical. and interacting with others in social. collaborative work teams. Outcomes should be minimized to maximize engagement and integration opportunities. there are two reasons to acquire technology.133 content as well as being able to locate additional information when needed. information exchange opportunities. Minimizing outcomes allows teachers to focus on instructional processes ensuring students have ample opportunities to take learning to higher levels rather than placing emphasis on products or outcomes from the use of the technology tools. From this movement. Research shows that technology research pedagogy can change the teaching practices and learning approaches in classrooms.

the data is inconclusive that the number of teaching years affects the number of hours per week teachers elected to integrate technology because 58% of the participants had 15 or fewer years experience and indicated at least 3 hours of technology . since they like to work together resulting in active academic engagement. However. 2000). 2006). Teachers who indicated constructivist practices noted that they allow students to work together in cooperative groups to explore tasks that are more complex. When students are working on tasks that are more complex their learning becomes interactive and collaborative (Means et al. Teachers also indicated they allow students to have discussions that are directly related to course content.. Therefore. 2000). Other researchers support collaboration with the use of online telecommunication across classrooms. 2000).).). One argument is that students receive assignments or tasks that have a level of personal meaning and relevance (Means et al. encouraging collaboration among students from different geographic regions to improve academic skills (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo. Research indicates that high levels of active engagement during lessons are associated with higher levels of achievement and student motivation (Ryan & Deci. The number of years of teaching was selected as a variable because it seemed probable that teachers who had more experience would be less likely to integrate technology into the curriculum (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES]. When teachers assign more complex tasks students become more active in defining their own learning goals and regulating learning as a process (Means et al. 2003). Students are more motivated when they collaborate.134 critical thinkers and leaders (Yazon. it is important to provide methods of instruction that prove meaningful to students (Sturgess. 2004).

Because the teachers do not have adequate resources they often feel frustrated when trying to integrate technology tools into the classroom to engage students. including critical thinking. and available resources did prove significant in terms of how teachers integrate technology into their curriculum to engage students. Availability of resources was selected as a variable because it seemed apparent that teachers who experience frustrations from the lack of resources might be further stressed with the expectation that technology is to be integrated to allow students multiple opportunities and differentiated methods to acquire new content knowledge or reinforce existing content knowledge. it is important to teach teachers methods of how to use technology as a tool to support the teaching and learning process (Hughes. operating a single computer classroom is difficult and less effective when asking students to perform twenty-first century skills. 2008. Furthermore. A possibility of this occurrence is lack of resources. Based on respondent responses and the lack of resources located campus wide. Additionally. Oblinger & Oblinger. the integration of technology into K-12 classrooms is fundamental to the success of many student populations (Watson. 2005). Throughout the study. it can be understood that teachers are frustrated and less willing to integrate technology due to the complexities involved with integration processes. Moderating variables including number of hours of technology integration. it was emphasized that technology integration in K-12 classrooms is one way to begin a much-needed educational reform and change the way students are taught and teachers think. types/amounts of professional development. problem solving.135 integration each week. Implications for Leadership As detailed in Chapter 1. and collaboration. . 2007).

Teachers use technology in ways that are consistent with their current teaching practices (Matzen & Edmunds.. the results are preliminary and could vary drastically dependent on the population. teachers are less likely to implement technology if it is not already a current practice within their instructional design (Zhao et al. 2006). Pedersen. Because this study only examined one feeder pattern in one school district and there was minimal participation from schools outside the intermediate campus. longitudinal studies of how teachers integrate technology must be examined over time to determine trends and analyze how technology integration is increasing levels of student engagement. which encourages teachers to transform instructional practices and serves as a channel for change (Cuban et al. Further.. The primary focus of the study was to explore how teachers use technology tools for active engagement among students. 2001). Teachers in more technologically affluent school districts may indicate a broader spectrum of technology integration and usage. otherwise bad pedagogy may become automated (Debevec. teacher innovation is unlikely. Research that examines various methods of how technology tools are integrated into K-12 classrooms must be reviewed and assessed frequently.136 Research indicates that teachers who understand the need to integrate technology typically have higher achieving students (Watson). and for teachers to change instructional uses of technology and use computers there must be some pedagogical connections to how the use of technology will support the curriculum. It is also a possibility that more affluent schools and school districts may be less fluent in technology proficiencies. 2007). Consequently. Little support for integration of technology exists. Shih & Kashyap. 2002). due in part. to lack of federal funding assistance. 2006. These findings may vary by place. It is . Furthermore.

Having a small population from the middle school and high school campuses does not fully represent those populations. namely K-4 and 7-12 may leave the generalizability of the study questionable. the distribution of the population was primarily located at the fifth and sixth grade levels. An additional limitation to the . Another limitation was that the questionnaire was somewhat lengthy with the qualitative data collection questions. This lack of participation from other grade levels. however. and combining the elementary and intermediate campuses as one population for data triangulation purposes. Another limitation to the study was the assumption the teachers who identified themselves as technology proficient effectively and frequently integrated technology into their curriculum. The expectation of technology proficiencies varies from district to district and state to state because there are limited mandates for levels of teacher technology proficiency. The study was also limited to the number of participants from each grade level because there was not an equitable distribution of participants. The researcher is an intermediate school intervention specialist and teachers at this level may have felt obligated to participate. Limitations of this research study included questioning a larger population of intermediate schoolteachers than any other population.137 also possible that continuous training and professional development followed by adequate and properly working resources will encourage more use and integration of technology tools in K-12 classrooms to allow opportunities for active engagement and acquisition of new content knowledge. previously certified teachers are not required to meet these qualifications. New Texas teachers are required to show evidence of technology proficiency. however. This study was limited to those participants who voluntarily agreed to participate. The response rate was 75%.

Finally. educational leaders may develop programs to assist their faculty who are experiencing difficulty with implementing educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement for students at all academic levels. Recommendations Teachers’ willingness to share their experiences with technology integration into the K-12 curriculum for student engagement left important unanswered questions. to consider new methods of instruction allowing for more differentiated instruction.138 study was possible subject confusion over precise meaning of terms such as proficiency. the generalizability of the data may be questionable. the results of this study may assist in the implementation of new programs to encourage the integration of online educational tools in K-12 classrooms to promote active academic engagement at a variety of levels. The fact that technology TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) have been placed into . with such a small sample size (N = 48). The results of this study may empower educational leaders and classroom teachers. The state of Texas has implemented technology competencies that students are expected to learn at each grade level ranging from kindergarten through 12th grade. and behaviorism when used in relation to educational technology. or teacher leaders. the results from this study may influence the future of educational technology integration and implementation from campus to campus across various school districts. The study did not analyze out-of-class teaching or learning using technology subsequently serving as an additional limitation. Subsequently. constructivism. Additionally. academic engagement. which may create additional opportunities for active engagement for students at all academic levels. With the additional information gathered from this study.

do Web-based applications affect the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? How much does technology integration into the curriculum impact teachers’ willingness to embrace existing tools? How do teachers work to overcome barriers associated with technology integration? How can teachers work more collaboratively to find methods to integrate technology tools into the existing curriculum providing active engagement opportunities for students at all academic levels? A focus group of teachers could share insight regarding how teachers work to overcome barriers associated with technology integration. What effect. Gaining insight into schools in either rural or inner city areas may provide more diverse attitudes with respect to how teachers work to overcome barriers. Surveys at larger school districts that are more technologically affluent may shed more insight to what effect. In an effort to see diversity in responses. if any. Web-based applications affect the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement. Further research in the field of technology integration will serve to answer several questions. if any.139 technology education curriculums shows how significant technology education is becoming statewide. focus groups or individual interviews may indicate if and why teachers feel relieved that technology education is now being recognized. teachers from a technology rich school district and a somewhat less rich school district could be surveyed to explore methods of how teachers collaboratively work to promote integration of technology tools into the curriculum to provide academic engagement opportunities for students at all academic levels. Additionally. .

either qualitatively. Careful examination of the data over the course of several years may allow implications to become clearer. and teacher attrition. Because there is limited research examining how K-12 teachers integrate technology into their curriculum to provide active engagement opportunities. teacher preparation. Another option is an exploration of unanswered research question: What effect. many future study opportunities exist. and additional research is needed to examine . if any. Further examination of barriers in more technologically rich school districts is worthy of future study. In addition. a comparative analysis or longitudinal study may be completed to gain a deeper understanding of how teachers integrate technology into their curriculum for active engagement among students in K-12 classrooms. Web-based applications affect the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? Repeating the study with face-to-face interviews may make the data more rich. The study could also be repeated with a larger sample size. When interpreted alongside data from like studies conducted over time. or mixed method design is another area worthy of further examination. When repeating the research over time.140 Recommendations for Future Research In an attempt to observe trends over time. Another possibility for future study is to repeat the study in a rural setting. quantitatively. Repeating the study with a different population. the data collected in this study may become more meaningful. repeating the study in a more technologically rich school district may provide new insight. Examination of how teachers use technology during project.and problembased learning is worthy of future study. research on how teachers integrate technology tools for active engagement among students must be repeated frequently because of the constant change among technology.

and then survey the same students to see if their teachers are implementing any tools presented to them during their professional development sessions.141 teachers’ skill levels to implement a variety of technology tools outside of the internet and the basic Office products. An alternative to the study is to conduct an action research study examining the teachers’ skill levels from student perceptions before teachers participate in a variety of instructional technology professional developments. exploration of how teachers use specific technology types such as mobile learning devices is a possibility for future study. . Finally.

Behaviorists believe that knowledge exists on its own. intermediate school (5-6). middle school (7-8). teachers become facilitators of learning by assisting students in the construction of meaning and processing of new information. The instruction follows a more traditional approach and pedagogical practices. Although participants’ identity were secured (see Appendix N). In constructivism. .. thus leaving teachers as facilitators and coaches rather than knowledge dispensers (Means. the sample size of this study included 48 technologically proficient teachers in one school district located in north central Texas. Teachers use technology tools for active engagement among students at higher cognition levels. Learning occurs through drill and practice and the learner is able to give predicted outcomes (Summary of Behaviorism). Based on the study results. and the high school (9-12). beginning with lower level and working to higher levels. Teacher-directed and structured classrooms are consistent with this theory. Teachers are the facilitators who are present to assist students in their construction and building schema to construct personal solutions to existing problems (Clark. In addition. There is less emphasis on group work and more emphasis on individualized work. et al. regardless of student ability levels and preexisting knowledge. and learning ensues during the transmission and acquisition of knowledge (Summary of Behaviorism. 2008). K-12 teachers need effective professional development in technology integration within their curriculum to understand how to engage students.142 Summary The two theoretical frameworks that supported this research study were constructivism and behaviorism. Instruction is sequential. 1999). 2003). The sampling included teachers from the elementary school (K-4).

group projects. and the barriers perceived with technology integration. projects. Accordingly. it is limited to internet research. do Web-based applications have on the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? This was because limited data was available and few teachers reported little to no use with respect to the Web-based applications. Twenty-first century students prefer “questions rather than answers. The 48 participants who participated in the study shared insight to how they effectively use technology to engage students in the K-12 classroom. working with real-world issues. While there is some variety of integration. sharing their opinions. 32% use technology tools for projects. and 22% for differentiated instruction. and differentiated instruction methods. the data proves the alternative hypothesis that teachers integrate a variety of technology tools into their curriculum for active engagement among students. and seamless integration of technology tools into their curriculum to provide their students active engagement opportunities. this study illustrates that Texas teachers need additional professional development. and curricular opportunities to allow students to use technology tools for active engagement. 2008. The researcher was unable to answer the fourth research question: What effect. if any. 33).143 teachers reported the need for reliable and adequate resources for proper. effective. Forty-six percent of the teachers questioned indicated they use the internet for research. the techniques technologically proficient teachers use to promote active engagement. . p. resources. Seamless technology integration into the curriculum takes time. While an overwhelming 96% of the teachers identified themselves as constructivist. and teachers who speak with them as equals rather than as inferiors” (Prensky.

(2006).144 REFERENCES American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. Feb. The Wilson Quarterly. America on the couch. Baker. Preventing School Failure. Askun. November). 32. (AAT No. (2007). (2003). Retrieved November 14. 2007. K. (2005. Barber.. 323635). C. Professional Geographer. 7. 2008. (2008).reference. Retrieved March 28. 2007.. 533. & McMahan. 49-54. 6. Relationships between students’ level of effort and course perceptions in a blended learning environment. S. (2007. C. 57. H. Formica. Barnett.). Fraster. T. from EBSCOhost database. Spring). Journal of Primary Prevention. R. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 51. Retrieved July 18. Differentiating instruction to include all students. 97. S. Apsler. from ERIC Digest (ERIC Identifier: ED479843) . Retrieved September 26. Investing in technology: The payoff in student learning. R. 2007. Retrieved August 28. 2008. 2007. from EBSCOhost database. from http://dictionary. M. Retrieved October 7.com/browse/schema Anderson. R. (2006.. Promoting positive adolescent development for at-risk students with student assistance. from Proquest database. Internet-based GIS mapping in support of K-12 education. B. from EBSCOhost database. Indiana University.

175-198. C. Pump up the pod: Popular culture and podcasting in a critical secondary language arts course. 1435698). (2004). A methodological morass? How we can improve quantitative research in distance education. The blended learning book: Best practices.htm Behler. C. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.. The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. Brown. J. E.theshrink.d. R. and lessons learned.. Alexandria. proven methodologies. (2007). M. & Brooks. A. (AAT No. University of Hawaii at Manoa. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Brooks. Walden University. & Borokhovski. August 5. Distance Education 25. from http://www.info/Theory_Behaviorist. P.. Behaviorist Theory. (2002).. Bersin. M. Exploring the beliefs and attitudes of exemplary technology-using teachers. (AAT No. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Lou. R. Y. F. 3255225). (n. J. Bonk. S. J. 2008. F. M.145 Bausell. & Graham. B. (AAT No. A case study describing online discussion in a tenth-grade .). 3140991). Bernard. Abramia. (2006). (1999) In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classroom. Bigatel. Retrieved. (2004). K. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. (2004). (2006). P. The future of podcasting in postsecondary education: A Delphi study. C. local designs.

cobbk12. (AAT No. . A. II. An experience in Froebel's garden. University of Virginia. Brotz. Retrieved July 18. Technology Horizons in Education Journal. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. (AAT No. Clark. J. 2007. Fall). (2005). R. student achievement. 3257513). Constructivism. C. E. 2007. 2008. (2004. University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved July 19. W.nwlink.html Cobb County School District (2007) School Feeder Pattern Retrieved October 29. (2000). (1999). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 27. 67. University of Phoenix. Cerafoss. 3232788). S. (2007). Carpenter.. The relationship of public elementary school size. from Proquest database. (2006). S. 11. (AAT No. D.com/~donclark/hrd/history/constructivism.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Nov_21/ai_n15862780 Butzin. M. $2 billion federal program funding internet for public schools makes no impact on student performance. from Proquest database. Project CHILD: A decade of success for young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. from http://findarticles. Components associated with perceived student satisfaction in a technology enhanced secondary astronomy course. 3044914). and per pupil expenditures in South Carolina. from http://www. 2007. Retrieved August 18. from http://www. S. Businesses Services Industry. 4. Childhood Education.146 biotechnology class.htm Cole. 2008. Correlation of student performance based on multiple assessment tools in middle school mathematics. Retrieved August 5.org/generalinfo/feederpatterns. (2006).

. 813-834. K.R. from http://www. and the history of computers in education. & Schindler.. 2008.. C. P. Cuban.html Cooper. L. (2001). (2003). American Educational Research Journal. (2004). September 8. Creswell. J. & Hart. The American Biology Teacher.. 111. New York: McGraw-Hill. 95(2). Dakers. DePaula.edu/~murdock/histofcs.E. Teachers College Record. Shih. 293-307. A. & Kashyap. & Peck. (2006).E. from http://www.csulb. Kirkpatrick. W. (2007). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. R. R. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Learning strategies and performance in a technology integrated classroom. the history of computers.147 Computer Questions (2007). A constructivist approach to inquirybased learning: A TUNEL assay for the detection of apoptosis in cheek cells. and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research.. Educational research: Planning. (2005). P. 38(4). J. V. NJ: Prentice Hall. S. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 15(2).. (1993). H. Retrieved July 19. Computers meet classrooms: Classroom wins. L. 457. 38(3).. Retrieved. (2004).writing. Cuban.com/main/view_item/item_id/1282195 Correiro. E. Technology influence on education. Upper Saddle River. 70. The hegemonic behaviorist cycle. Griffin. L. Debevec. History. K. The construction of usefulness: How users and context create . Cornell. conducting. 2007. Business Research Methods. (2008). 185-2 10. D. M.

Dervin. University of Colorado at Boulder. University of Alberta. (2006. Funderstanding. Heath. Developing a web-based instructional program in a metropolitan university.com/internetedition/langmag_pages/podcasting_LM_apr 06.. and employee commitment to planned organizational change. organizational justice. Breaking ranks. S. Podcasting demystified: Fred Dervin explains how to use podcasts to enliven the language classroom.com/vygotsky. 2007. (2006). (2007). 36-37. C. Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed. D. from EBSCOhost database. G. 56-61. from http://languagemagazine. George. (2000). (2000). R. C. F. Retrieved September 17. 2007. 2007.148 meaning with a social networking system. From technophobes to tech believers.. P.). E.. Sorg. April). MA: D. P. 1(4). Individual resistance.. Unpublished manuscript. (2001). Lexington. Dzuiban.pdf Dewey. Canada. (2006). THE Journal. 34. University of Central Florida Feng. (1910). University of Minnesota. P. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. J. J. & Hartman. from http://www. F. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Vygotsky and social cognition. Foster.. June). J. Principal Leadership. & Airasian.. Juge. Truman-Davis. D. Grassroots blogging practice in America and China. Upper Saddle River. L. C.cfm Gay. . (2007. Fox.funderstanding. B. Moskal. Mills. R. Retrieved August 5. Retrieved August 2. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. How we think. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Technology integration. L. Retrieved September 8. 48. Herndon.com/wire/ebiz/showArticle. 131-139. The influence of essential technology on teachers’ attitudes. United States: Detroit. August 10. MI. The impact of teacher self efficacy and attitudes toward classroom computer(s) on the issue of classroom technology. How teacher attitudes and administrator behaviors affect levels of technology integration in the classroom. MS. The University of Southern Mississippi. Study: Internet has no impact on student performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 2007. 127.jhtml?articleID=174400731 Green. Education. S. 96-101. Hirschheim. (2006). Informal forum: Fostering active learning in a teacher preparation program. from http://home. 2007. July). J. (2006. Greevy. The internet-based education bandwagon: Look before you leap.149 Gonsalves. Wayne State University. K. NY. (2008). G. Communications of the ACM. New York. E. (2005). (2006). F. Hughes. M. from Proquest database. A mixed methods case study of the influence of teacher professional development for technology integration on subsequent student .rr. Columbia University. D. 2008.techweb.hvc. 2008. Teachers College. Huang. from http://www. Hattiesberg. H. from Proquest database. (2005. G. Retrieved April 28. Retrieved August 18. Fall).com/greevyportfolio/Technology%20Integration%20greevy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved. (2006).ht m Hardin. A. (2005). R.

The University of Texas at Austin.open. O.html Johnson. 2008. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. from http://www-jime. 33(7). Blogging and ESL writing: A case study of how students responded to the use of Weblogs as a pedagogical tool for the writing process approach in a community college ESL writing class. British Journal of Educational Technology. 36(6). B. The University of Oklahoma. History of educational technology. Retrieved September 2. from www. 14-27. from Proquest database. VA. D.com/education-articles/a-mixed-method-design-177933. A. & Onwuegbuzie. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 3304229). OK. (2007). Norman. M..articlesbase. 3254430). (2004). Hunt. S. Retrieved November 14.150 achievement. S. (2007). 2).ac. (2005). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. . Fairfax County. Kerr. George Mason University. 2007. Justus. Retrieved July 20. Where online learning. Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally based model for technology and educational change.html JIME: Educational Technology (2003. Feb. (AAT No. J. Mixed methods: A research paradigm whose time has come. (AAT No. 2008. R. (2005). J. Jones.uk/2002/6/issroffscanlon-02-6-03. A mixed method design. Educational Researcher. community and culture intersect: Toward an understanding of knowledge-building communities in virtual environments. 1005-1016.

C. (2005). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Virtual schooling at middle grades: A case study. Wichita. Retrieved. McKenzie. A. (AAT No. January). L. August 18. KS. 2008.T. Learning Theories. Retrieved November 14.151 Klamik. (2006). 2007. Exploring self-direction in an online learning community. B. J. T. Tennessee Technological University. (AAT No. University of Calgary. MD. Learning theories and theorists: Comparison of constructivist and behaviorist learning theory models. 3240864). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Retrieved September 27.pdf Litke. Canada. from http://tiger. (2004). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 3205481). Baltimore. Creating a product to increase internal motivation to use technology in the classroom. Kretchmar. (2004). (2008). My space: Using blogs as literature journals with adolescents.. from EBSCOhost database. Seymour Papert and constructivism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Multiple intelligences and instructional technology. PEW internet project data memo. (2005). (2007. Wichita State University. D. MacLachlan. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence. from http://www. March 11-14th. W. A. & Connell. M. D.org/pdfs/PIP_SNS_Data_Memo_Jan_2007. Canada. 2004. Littrell. Cookeville. (1998). NJ: Upper Saddle River.. University of Calgary.pewinternet. (2005).towson. J. 2008. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. A.htm Lenhart. & Madden. .edu/~mheldt1/portfolio/theory. Klem.

. 34. Wright (Eds. Middleton.. B.org/support/details.S. 2008..cti. 417-430. July). A. 73. L. 15-27. from http://www. K. An interpretive history of industrial arts (pp. (2007. J. Retrieved August 5. E. et al. 36(1).. Sullivan. & Edmunds. from http://nces. J. no use.. NWEA.gov/surveys/frss/publications/2000102/ Nelson.. Retrieved August 5. (2000). Munshi. A. Department of Education.nwea.152 Matzen. 25(12). DC: U.aspx?content=528 . PC Magazine. Social learning in a heterogeneous population: Technology diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution. J. no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. IL: McKnight. 19-49). Journal of Development Economics.. Journal of Research on Technology in Education.. 2007. P. J. Olson. T. 2007. Bloomington. MySpace Nation. Data triangulation. Remz. Retrieved August 20. C. Summer). (2009). 76-87. August 6.ed. Norris. February 17. 185-213 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Poirot. Background: The European influence. K. (1981). from EBSCOhost database. & Soloway. Blando. N. In R. Retrieved. (2006. July). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development. from odysseia.). (1993).. Retrieved. Morocco. Using technology to support education reform. 2007. (2003). C. Washington. Means. T. Barella & T.gr/odysseas/documents/dod_usa1. C. C. from EBSCOhost database.. Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. (2004. 2009.doc Metz. R. No access.

podcasts. Richardson. 3296841). KY. Prensky. Blogs. (2008). K. Peake. CA: Corwin Press. CA. digital transactions. V. New York: Jossey-Bass. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. from Proquest Database. A case study of the digital divide: A study of teacher awareness and efforts to bridge the gap in underserved communities. & Oblinger. (2006). R. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.. Relationships between student achievement and levels of technology integration by Texas agriscience teachers. Briers. G. L. and legal discovery: A phenomenological study of possible paradoxes. Minneapolis. (2007). Summer). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. ID. MN. (AAT No. University of Louisville. (2005). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. J. Journal of Southern Agriculture Research 55. Ponschock. J. (2008. (2006). L. Computer technology. . Capella University. & Murphy. W. Educating the net generation. Edutopia. 32 Rentie. Boise State University. fast times: The twenty-first-century digital learner. 1. Pepperdine University. and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Pedersen. L.153 Oblinger. (2006). D. K-12 Educators’ beliefs and attitudes toward technology integration in the classroom. J. Young minds.. Priorities in K-12 distance education: A Delphi study examining multiple perspectives on policy practice and research. M. T.B. 2008. G.. wikis. Malibu. Boise. Retrieved August 14. T. Rice. Thousand Oaks. (2005).

& Reed. Learning and Leading with Technology. Saettler. and well-being.).irrodl. 10-13. (2005).centra. IA: Kendall/Hunt. social development. (2004). J. P. Dubuque. Retrieved August 14. S. Singh. thesis. Shaunessy. (2001). Centra Software. & Kurshan. & Jordan. (2004). A.. A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.. 2007. (2005).pdf Sivin-Kachala.E. Attitudes of teachers of the intellectually gifted in Mississippi toward information technology. (2000). Self-Determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. P. K.). The University of Southern Mississippi. B. H. American Psychologist. M. Simon. Washington. & Deci. T. Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. 32(5). 2000 research report on the effectiveness of technology in schools (7th ed. CT: Information Age Publishing. & Bialo. 39. E. M. Dissertation and scholarly research: A practical guide to start and complete your dissertation. R. DC: Software and Information . Retrieved August 5. 68-78. C. E..com/download/whitepapers/blendedlearning. Hattiesburg. Constructing learning: Using technology to support teaching for understanding.. 2007 from http://www. Greenwich. H.. (2006).org/index. or formal research project. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.php/irrodl/article/view/192/795 Ryan.154 Rovai. from http://www. (2000). The evolution of American educational technology (1st ed. 55(1). Sherman.

155 Industry Association. Skinner, B. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86-97. Smith, D. O. (2006). Analysis of factors contributing to teachers’ acquisition and use of technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, TX. Steinhoff, G. (2007). Examining and addressing resistance to change in an elementary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark. Sturgess, M. C. (2006). Reflections on the practice of blended learning in first year postsecondary education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada. Summary of Behaviorism. (2008). Retrieved, August 5, 2008, from https://www.msu.edu/~kalinkat/professionalpages/TechMatrixMaterials/Behavior ismSummary.htm Tang, A.; Owen, C.; Biocca, F.; & Mou, W. (2004). Performance evaluation of augmented reality for directed assembly. In A. Nee & S. Ong (Eds.), Virtual and augmented reality applications in manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Teddlie, C. (2005). Methodological issues related to causal studies of leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 33(2), 211-227. Tello, S., & Lewis, D. (2008). Using wikis, podcasts, and video files to enhance the learning experience. Proceedings for the Northeast Region Decision Sciences Institute (NEDSI), 204-209. Retrieved, August 5, 2008, from EBSCOhost database. Thompson, A. D., Simonson, M. R., & Hargrave, C. P. (2008). Educational

156 technology: A review of the research (2nd ed.). Ames, IA: College of Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tomlinson, C.A. (2004). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Toporski, N., & Foley, T. (2004, January). Design principles for online instruction: A new kind of classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5, 1. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde13/articles/toporski.html Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2007, March). Morphological analysis in school-age children: Dynamic assessment of a word learning strategy. British Journal of Education, 77, 143-165. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. United States Department of Education. (2007, September). No child left behind: A toolkit for teachers. Retrieved September 27, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/toolkit_pg4.html Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of high psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Watson, S. J. (2007). A national primer on K-12 online learning. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://ww.nacol.org/docs/national_report.pdf White, H. B. (2004). Exemplary teacher program: A case study of professional development model for technology integration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS .

157 Wingard, R. G. (2004). Classroom teaching changes in Web-enhanced courses: A multiinstitutional study. Educause Quarterly, 27(1). Retrieved August 2, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/pub/eq/eqm04/eqm0414.asp Yazon, J. M. O. (2004). Is it design or is it inquiry? Exploring technology research in a Filipino school setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of British Columbia, Canada. Zargari, A., & MacDonald, K. (1994, May/June). A history and philosophy of technology education. Technology Teacher, 53, 5. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. Zhao, Y, Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104 (3), 482-515.

158 APPENDIX A: QUALITATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE—PRIOR TO PILOT STUDY

Each grading period ____ % of the assignments/projects requires the use of technology. Describe how you integrate computer activities into the curriculum. 4. Describe how you use blogging in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. 15. Describe how you use your classroom website to keep students actively engaged. . 11. 6. Describe how you use internet websites in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. Describe how you use wikis in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. 12. Describe how you use mind mapping software in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. Describe the types of technology resources you have access to. 9. 14. 7. 8. Describe how technology tools are used in your classroom to support problem. 5.and project-based activities. Describe how you use video streaming in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. Describe how you use podcasts in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. 3. Describe how you use interactive Web tools to keep your students actively engaged. Describe how you integrate Web-based technology into your curriculum. 2.159 Participant Name (optional) ____________________________________ Participant School ____________________________________________ Participant Grade level taught (include all) ________________________ Participant Subject Taught _____________________________________ Are you (choose all that apply): _____ General Education _____ Gifted/Talented _________ Grade Level _________ Grade Level 1. 13. Describe how you use movie making software in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. 10. Describe the process your school utilizes to reserve available technologies for teacher/student use.

27. Describe how you check how well students in your class understand new ideas using alternative assessment techniques. Describe how you teach your content area to prepare your students to solve real-life problems. 28. Behaviorists/ Constructivists: 19. Describe how you use the learning cycle methodology for teaching in your content area. Describe how students in your class explore questions generated from their own experiences. 25. 29. 21. Describe the types of district purchased software programs you have available for use with your students. Describe how you allow your students to use each other to learn content ideas from one another. 23. Describe how discussions in your class allow students to be actively engaged in asking questions and discussing it as necessary.160 16. . Describe how students in your class spend time in small groups interpreting data and evaluating conclusions. 26. Describe how students in your classroom explore the topic prior to formal presentation. 22. 20. Describe how students in your class spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding. 17. Describe the types of personally purchased software programs you have available for use with your students. Describe how you encourage students to ask questions when you present new information. 24. Describe how students in your class use information from different sources to solve problems within your content area.

39. 37. 36. Describe how students in your class use the “think aloud” approach when solving problems. Describe how students in your class work in cooperative learning groups. 38. Describe how the ideas in your class are made personally meaningful. Describe the types of technology training your school district provides to you and how often. Describe how students in your class explore questions generated from their own experiences. Describe how you encourage students to bring up new topics for discussion related to your content area.161 30. 40. 35. 33. 32. 31. Describe how you use questions to determine if students are logical in their thinking. . Describe how you use different approaches to assess student mastery of the ideas you have taught in class. Describe how students in your class discuss observations and data and receive feedback on their interpretations. 34. Describe why you allow/do not allow students to retake exams after additional instruction when they fail to demonstrate mastery of the content. Describe how students in your class select and evaluate research articles on topics in which they are interested.

162 APPENDIX B: QUANTITATIVE SURVEY—PRIOR TO PILOT STUDY .

I use lectures as a primary means to teach. 3. 2. . 6. Students in my class get the grade they earn on the first try. 4. 3. 2.163 Participant Name (optional) ____________________________________ Participant School ____________________________________________ Participant Grade level taught (include all) ________________________ Participant Subject Taught _____________________________________ Are you (choose all that apply): _____ General Education _____ Gifted/Talented _________ Grade Level _________ Grade Level Scale: 1—never or very rarely 2—rarely 3—sometimes 4—often 5—very often or always Question 1 Never or very rarely 2 Rarely 3 Sometimes 4 Often 5 Very often or always Behaviorist 1. 5. I rely primarily on quizzes and paper and pencil tests/quizzes to grade in my class. 4. Curricular activities in my classroom rely mainly on textbooks as offered to developing my own course materials. I seek correct answers to validate student learning. Students in class often learn content ideas from one another. Constructivist 1. Students in my class spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding. Students in my class primarily work independently. Students in my class spend time in small groups interpreting data and evaluating conclusions. Students in my class are encouraged to ask questions when I present new information.

I provide interactive learning opportunities for students through my classroom website. In my classroom. 17. . 13. 18. 12. 8. student explorations of the topic frequently precede formal presentation. I place assignments on my website for my students to review. 15. 22. I use blogging in my classroom to keep students actively engaged. Ideas taught in my class are made personally meaningful by asking students to give examples of the concepts discussed in class. I use podcasts in my classroom to keep students actively engaged. I use questions to determine if students are logical in their thinking. I use interactive Web tools to keep my students actively engaged. 23. I teach my content area to prepare my students to solve real-life problems. 14. Students in my class select and evaluate research articles on topics in which they are interested. 10. 25. 16. 7. Discussions in my class allow students to be actively engaged in asking questions and discussing it as necessary. 20. I use movie making software in my classroom to keep students actively engaged.164 5. Students in my class work in cooperative learning groups. Students in my class use the “think aloud” approach when solving problems. Students in my class retake exams after additional instruction when they fail to demonstrate mastery of the content. 21. presentations. I use internet websites in my classroom to keep students actively engaged. I use video streaming in my classroom to keep students actively engaged. 6. I use different approaches to assess student mastery of the ideas taught in the class. I encourage students to bring up new topics for discussion related to my content area. 19. 24. 9. I check how well students in my class understand new ideas by alternative assessment techniques such as portfolios. 11. etc. I use wikis in my classroom to keep students actively engaged.

Alpha Smarts r. Publishing (e. e. How often do you find or develop scavenger hunts to introduce or review a unit of study? 30. Please check the frequency in which you use each of the following software with your students for active engagement: (QUAN) a. Video Streaming n. Microsoft Publisher) i. Blogs j. iMovie) h. How often do you use the internet to show images or video clips that are related to your curriculum? 29. Please answer each of the following questions. How often do you connect with other classrooms using video conferencing or web cams? 28. Microsoft Access) Presentation (e. Microsoft Publisher) Spreadsheet (e.g. Digital Video Production (e.g.g. Microsoft Word. Podcasts l. PALM Pilots o. Microsoft PowerPoint) Internet District Purchased Software (e. Video Cameras p. Internet Websites (typically for research purposes) m. c. How often do you use mind-mapping/outlining software with your students? 27. How often do you have your students create high quality Power Point presentations as unit projects? 32.) g. Scanners q. etc.g. .g. Inspiration. Microsoft Word. I actively look for new lesson plans that focus on my content area that integrate the use of technology. Kidspiration. b.165 26. d. Publishing (e. f. Smart Boards s.g. How often do your students participate in scavenger hunts to introduce or review a unit of study? 31. Wikis k.g. IPOD/MP3 Players 33. Microsoft Excel) Database (e.

I do not feel like I have enough time to integrate technology into my classroom with all of the other things I have to accomplish in the curriculum. YES/NO 5. In my classroom I have _______ computers.166 1. I integrate computers or technology applications into my classroom A. I have a classroom website. On an average week. At least three hours per week C. 4. 2. Less than three hours per week B. More than three hours per week . Given a choice of technologies. _____% of my students are capable of selecting the most appropriate technology tool for a given task. YES/NO 3.

167 APPENDIX C: SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSENT .

168 .

169 APPENDIX D: REQUEST TO BUILDING PRINCIPALS FOR PARTICIPATION .

The study will be open to all teachers. I look forward to working with you and your campus during this process. at the moment I need to know approximately how many teachers there are on your campus. Thank you. They cannot participate in the study until their consent form has been returned. I will email each teacher once the surveys have been set up and released from the online survey place. I'm excited that you are allowing me to use your school as a part of my doctoral research studies. Before I can begin the actual study. Tonya Laliberte. they are not required to participate. however. From you. I will be sending consent forms out in the next few weeks for the teachers to complete and return. MAED/CT . I need a few things from each of you.170 Dear Principals and good afternoon.

171 APPENDIX E: PARTICIPATION REQUEST STAFF E-MAIL .

The study will also explore particular barriers to technology integration. My name is Tonya Laliberte and I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on my Doctorate of Education (Ed. This research study will require approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour of your time for the completion of the interview. I will be requesting a time to meet with you for completion of the interview instrument.D) degree. The purpose of the research study is to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time. Additionally. Your participation in this study is voluntary. and signing of a consent form. I am conducting a research study entitled MIXED METHOD STUDY: EXPLORING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN K-12 CLASSROOMS. The results of the research study may be published but your identity will remain confidential and your name will not be disclosed to any outside party. . I will email you once the interview schedule has been established. you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself.172 Dear Teacher. the study will explore what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Your participation will involve the completion of either a semi-structured face-to-face interview. You cannot participate in the study until your consent form has been returned. completion of an electronic survey/questionnaire. I want to thank you for your time and I look forward to working with you campus during this process. I will be sending out consent forms out in the next few weeks for you to complete and return.

173 APPENDIX F: NOTIFICATION OF PARTICIPATION .

As a reminder.surveymonkey. You have been assigned an ID # that you will need to include with your survey. February 7. Additionally. http://www. The study will also explore particular barriers to technology integration. I wanted to notify you that the survey/questionnaire has been opened in Survey Monkey® and will remain opened for two weeks. 2009.com/s. the survey will require approximately 30-45 minutes of your time for the completion. Your ID code is located beneath the survey link. your identity will be anonymous.aspx?sm=YUGSXrqWECIqqAb9O88KMg_3d_3d Assigned ID # . Please use the following link to complete the survey. the study will explore what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement.174 Thank you for returning your consent form and volunteering to participate in the proposed research study. I want to thank you for your time and I look forward to sharing the study results with you upon completion of this process. As a reminder. the purpose of the research study is to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. closing Saturday. As a reminder. a MIXED METHOD STUDY: EXPLORING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN K-12 CLASSROOMS.

175 APPENDIX G: INFORMED CONSENT .

2. . Your identity will be kept anonymous. The researcher will structure a coding process to assure that anonymity of your name is protected. the researcher. Additionally. You understand that the information from the recorded interviews may be transcribed.net. The purpose of the research study is to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. I am conducting a research study entitled MIXED METHOD STUDY: EXPLORING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN K-12 CLASSROOMS. If you have any questions concerning the research study. please call me at 817-689-2264 or email me at trlaliberte@verizon. has thoroughly explained the parameters of the research study and all of my questions and concerns have been addressed. the study will explore particular barriers to technology integration.176 Title: Mixed Method Study: Exploring the use of Educational Technology Tools in K-12 Classrooms Dear Teacher. 3. you must grant permission for the researcher. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time. 4. Your participation in this study is voluntary. there are no foreseeable risks to you. to digitally record the interview. Data will be stored in a secure and locked area. you should understand the following: 1. As a participant in this study. You may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time without consequences. My name is Tonya Laliberte and I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on a Doctorate of Education (Ed. the study will explore what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Tonya Laliberte.D) degree. Additionally. You should be aware that you are free to decide not to participate or to withdraw at any time without affecting your relationship with this organization. The results of the research study may be published but your identity will remain confidential and your name will not be disclosed to any outside party. If the interviews are recorded. Your participation will involve the completion of an electronic survey and signing this consent form. The following information is provided to help you decide whether you wish to participate in the present study. Although there may be no direct benefit to you. and then destroyed. In this research. 5. The data will be held for a period of three years. a possible benefit of your participation is addressing some of the technology deficiencies found as a result of the study. you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. Tonya Laliberte.

the potential risks to me as a participant. My signature on this form also indicates that I am 18 years old or older and that I give my permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described. ____ I volunteer to participate in the quantitative section of the research study.177 By signing this form I acknowledge that I understand the nature of the study. Signature of the interviewee _____________________________ Date _____________ Signature of the researcher ______________________________ Date _____________ Printed Name: _______________________ School: ___________________________ Please check one of the following: ____ I volunteer to participate in the qualitative section of the research study. and the means by which my identity will be kept confidential. ____ I volunteer to participate in either section of the research study. .

178 APPENDIX H: LETTER CODING FOR SCHOOLS .

179 School Name Independence Elementary School Parkview Elementary School Trinity Meadows Intermediate School Trinity Springs Middle School Fossil Ridge High School School Code IES PVES TMIS TSMS FRHS .

180 APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE—REVISED AFTER PILOT STUDY .

181 Name (optional) 1. School 2. Assigned ID # 3. Grade level(s) you teach: a. K-4 b. 5-6 c. 7-8 d. 9-12

182 4. Choose one answer for each of the following questions.
Question Never or very rarely Curricular activities in my classroom rely mainly on textbooks as offered to developing my own course materials. I use lectures as a primary means to teach. I rely primarily on quizzes and paper and pencil tests/quizzes to grade in my class. Students in my class get the grade they earn on the first try. I seek correct answers to validate student learning. Students in my class spend time in small groups interpreting data and evaluating conclusions. Students in my class spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding. Students in my class are encouraged to ask questions when I present new information. Students in my class often learn content ideas from one another. Sometimes Very often or always

183
Discussions in my class allow students to be actively engaged in asking questions and discussing it as necessary. In my classroom, student explorations of the topic frequently precede formal presentation. I teach my content area to prepare my students to solve real-life problems. I encourage students to bring up new topics for discussion related to my content area. I check how well students in my class understand new ideas by alternative assessment techniques such as portfolios, presentations, presentations, etc.

184 6. Check the frequency in which you use each of the following items in your classroom with your students to keep students actively engaged to acquire academic content.
Question Never or very rarely Movie Making Software Wikis PowerPoint Presentations Scavenger Hunts Internet Internet images or video clips related to curriculum Video Conferencing Web Cams Mind-Mapping/Outlining Software Podcasts Interactive Web Tools (i.e. Websites, Webquests, etc.) Video streaming Blogging Spreadsheet (i.e. Microsoft Excel) Publishing Software (i.e. Microsoft Word, Microsoft Publisher) Digital Video Production Software (i.e. Sometimes Very often or always

e. Describe how technology tools are used in your classroom to support problemand project-based activities. Describe how you integrate each of the following into your curriculum to keep students actively engaged to acquire content knowledge or skills. Videowave. Windows Movie Maker. Kidspiration. 9. 10. . etc. Please describe other technology tools you use to keep students actively engaged to acquire academic content.) District Purchased Software (i. Inspiration.e. Microsoft Access) IPOD/MP3 Players Mobile Learning Devices (cell phones) Smart Boards Alpha Smarts Scanners Video Cameras PALM Pilots Computer Related Activities 7.185 iMovie.) Presentation Software (i. I have a classroom website? Yes No 8. Microsoft Power Point) Database Software (i. etc.e.

186 Technology Web-based Technologies Blogging Mind-mapping software Internet Websites Video Streaming Podcasts Wikis Movie-Making Software Your Classroom Website District Purchased Software/Programs Personally Purchased Software/Programs Teacher Response .

Describe how you… Task Use questions to determine if students are logical Teacher Response .187 11. Describe how students in your class… Activity Use your classroom website Use each other to learn content ideas from one another Spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding Spend time in small groups interpreting data and evaluating conclusions Explore questions generated from their own experiences Explore the topic prior to formal presentations Are prepared to solve real-life problems Use information from different sources to solve problems within your content area Explore questions generated from their own experiences Spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding Discuss observations and data and receive feedback on their interpretations Teacher Response 12.

188 in their thinking Use different approaches to assess student mastery of the ideas you have taught in class Make the ideas in your class personally meaningful Allow your students to use each other to learn content ideas from one another Encourage students to ask questions when you present new information Teach your content area to prepare your students to solve real-life problems Use the learning cycle methodology for teaching in your own content area 13. . In my classroom I have ________ computers. 16. Describe any barriers you have in the integration or acquisition of technology within your curriculum. Describe the types of technology training your school district provides to you and how often. Do you allow students to retake exams after additional instruction when they fail to demonstrate mastery of the content? Yes No 14. 15.

_______% of my students are capable of selecting the most appropriate technology tool for a given task. 20. Given a choice of technologies. 18. Each grading period ________% of the assignments or projects requires the use of technology.189 17. On an average week I integrate computers or technology applications into my classroom _______. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I do not have enough time to integrate technology into my classroom with all of the other things I have to accomplish in the curriculum. Comments/Concerns . Agree Disagree 19. Less than 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week More than 3 hours per week 21.

190 APPENDIX J: NOTIFICATION OF PILOT STUDY PARTICIPATION .

the purpose of the research study is to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. As a reminder. I want to thank you for your time and I look forward to sharing the study results with you upon completion of this process.191 Thank you for returning your consent form and volunteering to participate in the proposed research study. I wanted to notify you that the survey/questionnaire has been opened in Survey Monkey™ and will remain opened for one week. Please use the following link to complete the survey. the survey will require approximately 30-45 minutes of your time for the completion. a MIXED METHOD STUDY: EXPLORING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN K-12 CLASSROOMS. As a reminder. You have been assigned an ID # that you will need to include with your survey. Your ID code is located beneath the survey link. Additionally. your identity will be anonymous. . the study will explore what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. As a reminder. The study will also explore particular barriers to technology integration.

192 APPENDIX K: RESEARCH QUESTION 1 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES .

Ha1: Technologically proficient teachers do not integrate a variety of computer applications and Web-based activities into their classroom allowing students to complete project based learning activities.193 1. . How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology for active engagement among students in the K-12 classroom? H01: Technologically proficient teachers integrate a variety of computer applications and Web-based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project based learning activities.

processing data No Response No Response Educational websites to support curriculum No Response Answer not relevant Research. online games. smartboard No Response Research Research Research Learning. FLIP video camera for presentations Answer not relevant Answer not relevant No Response .and project-based activities. data manipulation.194 Please describe how technology tools are used in your classroom to support problem. graphing calculators. computers & software for labs. Q 10 Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 Response Group work for filming various projects Research & for finding images Online research Probes. presentations Research.com Research No Response No Response No Response Research. webquests None Research They aren’t No Response No Response Current Events No Response Research. group production No Response No Response No Response Tutorial Websites. contacting field experts. computer programs to create and publish materials.

195 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 Online websites to reinforce learning No Response Differentiated instruction PowerPoint presentations. telephones for contacting field experts Design process. Word). software (PowerPoint. interactive whiteboards for review . create products and inventions No Response Presentations. CD creation Developing projects & research No Response Student created projects No Response Research.

196

Please describe other technology tools you use to keep students actively engaged to acquire academic content. Q 9
Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 Response No Response Brain Pop, Discovery Streaming, Interactive Websites None Document Reader & Microscope mounted cameras; Probeware Movie clips/video clips Hyper-studio software Computer Games Leap Frog Tools Infant simulator No others Elmo to help visualize problems & work through problem solving process Newscasts No Response No Response No Response No Response Graphing calculators & software No Response PowerPoints; interactive websites; video streaming Online research Calculators Document cameras; projector; digital cameras None No Response United streaming; Power Points, Excel, Word, Internet; online supplemental materials No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response DVD creation Laptops, library desktops, conference calls on speakerphone None No Response No Response Digital cameras No Response Tape recorders; audio books/literature Power Point presentations; video clips

197
TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 Computers & mobile devices No Response Lab tools, active response system No Response Document camera; projector Projects—creation of real world products No Response Active expressions; kids text answers

198

APPENDIX L: RESEARCH QUESTION 2 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES

TMIS 022 Online videos; view websites through projector Research; images; video/movie making websites/tools Web-based technologies

FRHS 009

FRHS 002

TMIS 008

TMIS 020

Participant ID

Daily— researching lesson ideas (not integrated into curriculum)

Assessment; independent practice; online textbooks

three times per week.

Blogging

at least three times per week.

 Mind-Mapping Software

teachers to promote active engagement?

 Specific websites—content specific View websites to get background information; real world connections Research; images Internet Websites

Specific websites to content; webquests; TAKS practice websites

Introduction of ideas/new topics

Incorporation into lectures—content specific

Use very little, but when used applicable videos to content specific objectives

Applicable videos to content specific objectives

Acting/performan ce examples

Video Streaming

 Do not currently, would like to podcast performances that are filmed Podcasts

 Wikis

Ha1: Technologically proficient teachers fail to use a variety of web materials,

 Editing films/commercials and other video projects Not fully operational, just implemented by district

Movie-Making Software

2. What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient

H01: Technologically proficient teachers use a variety of Web materials, computer

applications, and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least

Describe how you integrate each of the following into your curriculum to keep students actively engaged to acquire content knowledge or skills. Q 11

computer applications, and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement

Class-room Website

199

 CADD design program; programs specific to content area

Lab materials

Brain pop discover learning

District purchased software

Personally purchased programs

practice skills. communication TMIS 017 TMIS 024 IES 001 TSMS 003 IES 002 FRHS 003 TSMS 006 IES 11967 TMIS 004 TMIS 006             Concept mapping to organize thoughts/ideas Relate body systems. oral reading of material for modification purposes Videos adding enrichment to lessons    Interviews and recording of products created to show understanding of topics taught                          Clay animation projects       Yearly yearbook of classroom activities. current events in science    Websites are listed on teacher webpage and they correspond with the bundles Gain information. student created movies to h f Does not support student learning  Communication: keeps parents informed  Communication: information regarding upcoming assignments. communicate  Videos to supplement concepts being taught Videos to supplement concepts being taught Presents material in an alternative way Videos used to introduce new material and reteach old material   Quizzes. builds on prior knowledge Watch videos on the web of experiments Websites to show activities Gain information. dissecting software    . independent practice CDs (software for math. research Researching background information for novels. vocabulary. information for research papers Research. stay informed. independent practice    Vlog for classroom newscast. health topics to one another (concept mapping) Research Websites to enrich lessons       Nothing computer generated   Academic practice towards students exact needs. additional learning opportunities 200    Academic support of concepts. stay informed.PVES 012 Research Allow students to visualize various concepts. websites of interest   Smartboard Inspiration for thinking maps  Communication. vocabulary)      Academic support of concepts. pertinent websites Information. language. practice skills.

location of current events    Interactive sites to reinforce learning    United Streaming & BrainPop to introduce new material.FRHS 011 To practice various skills Learning. and supplement concepts being       Location of new and creative ideas. college sites containing interactive models. reteach old material. reinforce learning. content specific websites to allow students to gain deeper   Research. used at the end of the unit to reteach and reemphasize key concepts   Videos used to introduce new material. istation. reteach old material.com.com.com.com     Helps students with keystrokes on graphing calculators        . help students get Activating background knowledge. starfall. research. research. calendar of events Mainly as a communication tool for the parents   201 Used for completion of daily work  To supplement classroom projects    Calculators and science software to build student understanding of technology and advantages of  Free items Learning.com. teacher resources. variety of websites allowing students to use models and demonstrations for labs Remediation. product choices. science investigations. etools         Graphing data. and supplement concepts being taught Videos used to introduce new material. presentations    Communication tool with parents and consistent aid for students  Communication tool to parents   Communication tool for parents Communication tool for parents Parent information. reteach old material. comparisons Tutorials TMIS 013 IES 004 PVES 011 TMIS 025 PVES 013 TMIS 010 TMIS 027 TMIS 014 TMIS 026 FRHS 007 Daily exercises are web-based and quizzes are sometimes webbased               Researching or processing data  Brainpop. pearsonsuccessnet . United Streaming. homework links for practice. and supplement concepts being taught                          Infomercials. funbrain.

used to reteach and reemphasize key concepts Activating background knowledge. reteach old material. and supplement concepts being  United streaming to activate background knowledge. and a variety of other adobe products            . teacher posts a question      Graphic organizers to reinforce concepts content specific  Used to reinforce goals class is currently working on Research current data on selected topics       Researching    United Streaming & Brain Pop to introduce new material. Photoshop. reteach old material. reteach old material. practice math concepts Used to reinforce goals class is currently working on Google searches and interactive websites Sometimes used for reinforcing learning concepts Use of the smartboard to complete interactive activities that are web based     Support project based activities Students research information prior to class discussion about it. PVES 002 TMIS 006 PVES 005 TMIS 023 TMIS 027 FRHS 004 FRHS 010 TMIS 021 PVES 13365 FRHS 014 Teacher shows pictures to the students about different topics of study aligned to the bundles   For tips and techniques. used at the end of the unit to reteach and reemphasize key concepts                          FLIP video software and Movie Maker     Students have written. and supplement concepts being     Viewing and learning from the experts  United Streaming to introduce new material. teaching students       Students use Gaggle.TMIS 022 Research topics. Avid for PCs—video production software    Keynote. relevancy United Streaming & BrainPop to introduce new material. filmed and edited movies to prove d di f Communication tool for parents— posting project directions and rubrics     Students create their own videos and use moviemaking software l b Issue assignments and communication to parents    Students have made commercials that parody ideas or concepts from li  202  Students work on targeted weaknesses  Used for teacher data and testing   Final Cut Pro for Macs. and supplement concepts being taught.

TSMS 005 Students complete 3 research papers a year. reminders. morning  Update on vocabulary and current events         Communication tool---reminders about assignments and the actual posting of assignments       203               . videos Webquests and research Research Research   Research Use a variety of tools to address specific skill deficits. locating pictures. interactive websites that correspond to Webquests Research United streaming.      Editing performances. or Students use this to record some of their personal writing  Individualized lectures Digital curriculum as appropriate to subject area content    Evaluation of performances United streaming to show videos to provide background information and visuals for the students.  Communication with other students          Internet research to enhance curriculum topic information. interactive websites  Videos of related topics that correspond to curriculum especially in cases of places.     i-pod used for listening to literature on audio books  Audio books. listen to authors read their own work             FLIP cameras to make mini-films and use of movie making software Communication of current assignments. time periods. They use the Internet to complete the research. images. occasional webquests Use a variety of tools to address specific skill deficits. Produce performances. interactive web sites FRHS 008 FRHS 013 TMIS 018 PVES 010 TSMS 004 TMIS 020 TMIS 007 FRHS 012 PVES 001    Creation of concept maps       Research Internet research. interviews. current objectives. calendar of upcoming events. interviews. etc.

204 APPENDIX M: RESEARCH QUESTION 3 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES .

Not enough computers in the lab. Ha1: Technologically proficient teachers do not perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications). administrative support. and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration. time to plan lessons TIME Unreliable computers—they don’t always work Lack of resources. None Time to grasp tech skills. and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration. unreliable computers Theme          TMIS 004 Lack of resources.205 3. Only have 1 computer lab and it is always in use. What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration? H01: Technologically proficient teachers perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications). Q16 Participant ID TMIS 020 Response We do not get much technology unless we suggest it and there are funds. no tech available for when computers go on blink     Funding Lack of Resources Lack of Resources Accessibility none time Unreliable resources Lack of resources Unreliable resources Lack of resources Lack of tech support from tech student developmental delays lack of resources TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 IES 11967 TSMS 006 Students have developmental delays Lack of resources . QUAL Describe any barriers you have in the integration or acquisition of technology within your curriculum. administrative support. Most funding is focused and spent at the high school level.

lack of space in lab to accommodate classes.206 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 Lack of resources Time Working computers Student to computer ratio. lack of student knowledge with regards to various technology applications. no computers in the science lab. MS Word. PowerPoint. etc. lack of adequate technology for student use       lack of resources lack of tech support assistance lack of adequate . no working technology in classroom. time (preparation)       TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 No student computers None Funding for resources Professional development (not conveniently offered) Lack of resources in the classroom Lack of resources in the classroom and laptop carts are never available Lack of available computers Unorganized resources. i. lack of emphasis placed on integration           lack of resources time working resources lack of resources Inconsistency with resources time lack of resources none funding professional development lack of resources lack of resources lack of resources unorganized resources usage not encouraged lack of training on curriculum implementation unreliable resources lack of lab space lack of student knowledge PVES 013 TMIS 025 Lack of working computers. slow/not working Internet. lack of communication regarding resources. lack of student education with computer usage and expectations. Lack of student computers in the classroom (0). lack of prerequisite knowledge from students. weak wireless signal. battery life of laptops.e. help desk requests not answered (8 weeks).

student lack of resources outside of class. difficulty acquiring resources. unable to use projector from teacher station Lack of working resources Lack of computers Lack of computers None Lack of technology Lack of student readiness Availability of resources.207 technology tools PVES 011 IES 004 None Lack of programs (submitted request 3 months ago. slow/antiquated              none lack of available software lack of tech support assistance lack of equipment none lack of student knowledge lack of teacher knowledge lack of resources lack of time Time None None Lack of resources (internet drops) Lack of resources Nonworking equipment Nonworking equipment Lack of resources Lack of resources None Lack of resources Lack of student knowledge Availability of resources TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 . lack of tech support assistance     TMIS 013 FRHS 011 None Learning curve (students & teachers)    FRHS 014 Accessibility and Time   PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 Time None None Lack of drops for Internet access Lack of student computers. finally after 3 months received program access).

difficulty accessing lab PVES 010 Limited time and limited knowledge . lack of training        TMIS 018 FRHS 013 Lack of available resources Antiquated equipment. time    FRHS 008 TSMS 005 Overarching Barrier None Lack of resources An overarching barrier noticed in further analysis through several questions in the questionnaire is that there is limited curricular support for the integration of technology and limited training for how to accomplish this goal.208 computers   TMIS 007 TMIS 020 Lack of resources Difficult to integrate things other than video or podcast.     Acquisition of resources Antiquated equipment Lack of resources Lack of training Lack of teacher knowledge Lack of resources Difficulty with acquisition of resources Limited time Limited teacher knowledge Lack of resources Antiquated equipment Time None Lack of resources Limited curricular support Limited professional development in areas of relevancy TSMS 004 Lack of classroom computers.

websites 1-2 times per year New teacher training No Response None specified I do not know Updates. not often Podcasting. summer workshops Email. consultation None specified . good handouts Power Point. websites Smartboards No Response Trainings every nine weeks at the campus level (various technologies). CLASS. promethean software. recurrent training.209 Describe the types of technology training your school district provides to you and how often. online gradebook K-Connect. email. DMAC) Basic computer skills Teacher communication or data A variety of training Not sure what exists: have to search for available trainings and I don’t have time to search New teacher training Very little/fill up fast No response Periodic seminars. new email. Q15 Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 Response No Response No Response Annual technology update training At least 3 trainings per year (various tools) and annual updates Not much and not often Limited Classes available. new ways to use technologies Basic level training on current software and programs No Response No Response None given Much offered None given Send out computer techs to teach new things (websites.

iStation Film simple usage Various technologies Podcasting workshops. varies.210 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 Curriculum training Excel. video/film applications. teachers choose based on need New technology purchased No Response Not specified . podcasting. software training during conference period Computer and application training No Response New software on campus No Response Microsoft Office programs. Unitedstreaming. Word.

211 In my classroom I have ______ computers. Q 17 Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 Response 2 1 30 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 3—1 teacher 2 student 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2—with 2 teachers in the room 5—4 student 1 teacher 1 4 2 No Response 30 1 2 6 1 11 3 0 1 2 5 1 working 1 not working 4 2 2 1 0 3 Notes Shared between 5 teachers Shared lab access 16 computers .

. Those with large numbers must be CATE or tech ed teachers.212 TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 Notes: 1 24 3 1 Many teachers indicated that they had only 1 computer in the classroom. One Computer classroom.

Q 18 Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 Response 70 40 50 50 100 50 30 0 70 75 20 85 80 50 20 75 50 50 50 75 33 25 10 25 90 No Response 100 75 No Response 100 75 50 90 65 No Response 90 50 50 No Response 95 95 50 Theme .213 Given a choice of technologies. ______% of my students are capable of selecting the most appropriate technology tool for a given task.

214 TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 75 10 85 50 95 80 .

215 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I do not have enough time to integrate technology in my classroom with all of the other things that I have to accomplish in the curriculum. Q 19 Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 Agree X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Disagree X X .

216 TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 X X X X .

217 Each grading period ______% of the assignments or projects requires the use of technology. Q 20 Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 Response 1 25 25 25 10 50 5 0 25 10 10 25 25 10 20 50 50 10 10 25 10-15 2-5 10 No Response 15 No Response 95 10 0 10 10 70 80 0 0 50 25 20 0 10 0 25 50 No Response 60-70 .

218 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 90 50 10 .

219 On an average week I integrate computers or technology applications into my classroom __________. Q 21 Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 Response < 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week .

220 TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week .

221 I have a classroom website? Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X No X .

222 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 X X X .

223 APPENDIX N: SERVER SECURITY .

www.NET 2. with escalation to SurveyMonkey staff Firewall restricts access to all ports except 80 (http) and 443 (https) QualysGuard network security audits performed weekly. here is an overview of our setup. . etc. email addresses. running on SQL Server 2005 and Windows 2003 Server Latest patches applied to all operating system and application files SSL encryption of all billing data and passwords Data backed up every hour internally Data backed up every night to centralized backup system. Hardware    Servers have redundant internal power supplies Data is on RAID 10.) will be held in the strictest confidence. with offsite backups in event of catastrophe What does SurveyMonkey do with the data or emails that I collect? We will not use the information collected from your surveys in any way. shape. Hackersafe scans performed daily. any other material you provide us (including images.224 Survey Monkey™ Security How do you keep our data secure and where is it stored? As stated in our privacy policy. operating system on RAID 1 Database is log-shippped to standby server and can failover in less than one hour Software      Code in ASP.sungard.com. In regards to the security of our infrastructure.0. humidity and smoke/fire detection Staffed 24/7 Network      Multiple independent connections to Tier 1 internet access providers Fully redundant OC-48 SONET Rings Uptime monitored every 5 minutes. The data you collect is kept private and confidential. Physical      Servers kept in locked cage Entry requires a passcard and biometric recognition Digital surveillance equipment Controls for temperature. We are located in the US and all surveys and data are stored on our servers. or form. The servers are kept at Sungard . In addition. we will not use your data for our own purposes. We do offer SSL encryption for the survey link and survey pages during transmission. You are the owner of all data collected or uploaded into the survey.

This information includes internet protocol (IP) addresses. even if you opt out of receiving any communications from SurveyMonkey. We do not link this automatically-collected data to personally identifiable information. Privacy Policy Log Files: As is true of most Websites. to administer the site. referring/exit pages. which does not identify individual users. operating system.  We will make every effort to ensure that whatever information you provide will be maintained in a secure environment. internet service provider (ISP).com. browser type. We use this information. to track users’ movements around the site and to gather demographic information about our user base as a whole. we reserve the right to contact you regarding your account status or any other matter that might affect our service to you and/or our records on you. . However. and clickstream data. to analyze trends. we gather certain information automatically and store it in log files.225  We do not collect personally identifiable information about you except when you specifically provide this information on a voluntary basis. date/time stamp.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful