1

Running head: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION: A MIXED METHODS STUDY OF VETERAN

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES

A dissertation presented to

The Faculty of the College of Education

Florida Gulf Coast University

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

Doctor of Education

By

Lauri M. Garbo

2016

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 2

APPROVAL SHEET

This dissertation

is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of

Doctor of Education

Lauri M. Garbo

Student Name

Approved: November 21, 2016

Thomas C. Valesky Committee Chair/Advisor

Dorothy C. Rea Committee Member 1

Judy R. Wilkerson Committee Member 2

The final copy of this dissertation has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 3

Table of Contents Chapter I ...... 10 Statement of the Problem ...... 12 Research Questions ...... 16 Definition of Terms ...... 17 Significance of the Study ...... 18 Outline of Remainder of the Study ...... 19 Chapter II ...... 21 Access to Technology ...... 21 Technology Integration ...... 22 Teachers’ Technology Skills ...... 23 Best Practices ...... 24 Flipped Classroom ...... 25 Continuum of Integration ...... 25 Technology as a Tool ...... 26 Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs ...... 28 Beliefs about Technology ...... 29 Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Technology ...... 30 Positive Experiences ...... 30 Verbal Reinforcement ...... 31 Applied Learning ...... 31 Expectations and Self-Efficacy ...... 32 The Role of School Culture ...... 33 School Culture Defined ...... 33 How Culture Affects Teachers ...... 34 Culture and Technology ...... 34 Mentoring and Modeling ...... 35 Peer and Coach Support ...... 35 Mentoring ...... 36 Train-the-Trainer ...... 37 Adopting Innovations ...... 37 Adult Learning Theory ...... 38 TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 4

Andragogy ...... 38 Infusing Content ...... 39 Training Implications ...... 39 Barriers to Technology Integration ...... 40 Lack of Time and Support ...... 40 Technology Malfunctions ...... 41 Chapter III ...... 43 A Definition and Rationale for Mixed Methods Research ...... 43 Quantitative Design and Definition ...... 44 Qualitative Design and Definition ...... 47 Challenges Addressed ...... 47 Data Collection and Analysis Procedures ...... 48 Validity Approaches ...... 50 Survey Instrument Design ...... 51 Construct validity...... 51 Reliability...... 52 Content validity...... 52 Validity for Qualitative Study ...... 53 Reliability for Quantitative Study ...... 54 Potential Ethical Issues ...... 54 Researcher Bias ...... 54 Researcher’s perceptions of technology use...... 54 Researchers’ comfort and confidence using technology...... 55 Researcher’s experience with technology integration...... 56 Confidentiality ...... 56 Chapter IV ...... 58 Results ...... 58 Quantitative Phase ...... 59 Qualitative Phase ...... 60 Description of Participants ...... 61 Research Question 1: How do veteran teachers perceive technology use? ...... 62 Quantitative Analysis of Research Question 1...... 62 TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 5

Qualitative Analysis of Research Question 1...... 64 Qualitative Summary of Research Question 1...... 69 Research Question 1: Summary of the Themes...... 72 Research Question 2: To what degree does a veteran secondary teacher’s confidence and comfort using technology impact his or her motivation to employ instructional technology in the classroom? . 73 Quantitative Analysis of Research Question 2...... 73 Qualitative Analysis of Research Question 2...... 75 Qualitative Summary of Research Question 2...... 80 Research Question 2: Summary of the Themes...... 83 Research Question 3: In what ways do veteran secondary teachers integrate technology into their instruction? ...... 83 Quantitative Analysis of Research Question 3...... 83 Qualitative Analysis of Research Question 3...... 86 Qualitative Summary of Research Question 3...... 91 Research Question 3: Summary of the Themes...... 94 Summary of Findings ...... 95 Chapter V ...... 97 Discussion ...... 97 Summary of Research Problem and Study Design ...... 97 Research questions and themes ...... 98 Findings ...... 100 Research Question 1 ...... 100 Research Question 2 ...... 101 Research Question 3 ...... 102 Implication of Findings ...... 104 Recommendations...... 106 Limitations of the study...... 108 Recommendations for Further Study...... 108 Conclusions ...... 110 References ...... 111

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 6

Abstract

The veteran secondary teacher is a valuable asset in the educational field, yet has not been the focus of predominant research studies in regard to attitudes, beliefs, and experiences with technology integration. This study utilized the Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods

Design, which was implemented in two phases. The research was designed to investigate how veteran secondary teachers in a Southwest Florida public school district are being affected by the pedagogical movement concerning the integration of educational technology. In phase one of the study, quantitative data was collected from 97 veteran secondary teachers at five secondary schools utilizing the online Teachers’ Use and Perceptions Survey (TUPS), developed by the

Florida Center for Instructional Technology at the University of South Florida. In phase two, convenience sampling was used to select 10 teachers from the veteran secondary teachers who participated in the survey. Qualitative data was collected during face-to-face interviews which utilized open-ended interview questions that were developed following an analysis of the survey results. Overall, veteran secondary teachers’ perceptions were positive; they believe that technology enhances their teaching, perceive the benefits of technology in terms of supporting their classroom instruction, and feel strongly that student use of technology enhances students’ performance. Most veteran secondary teachers indicated they feel comfortable using technology in their teaching and believe they use technology effectively in their teaching for instructional delivery, as a communication tool, and for students’ independent learning. These teachers also indicated a need for comprehensive technology training, a supportive learning network, opportunities to explore technology applications, and time to plan for technology integration as a pedagogical strategy.

Key Words: educational technology, technology integration, technology infusion, digital learning, veteran secondary teachers, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes, TPACK, BYOD TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 7

Dedication

To Mom and Dad

For your steadfast support

and unconditional love

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 8

Acknowledgments

I must first acknowledge the unwavering support and encouragement that my husband,

John, and our son, Chris, provided during this four-year period of my life. John, you sacrificed the desk and den, kept the computer stocked with ink and paper, turned down many social invitations due to my study schedule, and kept meals warm for me as I headed down I-75 after a

13-hour day. Chris, you shared the studying space with me, demonstrated patience when I had to find one more article, and ran numerous errands so I could stay glued to my laptop. The joy and pride that I feel now is because of you.

I would also like to thank the dedicated professors who guided our cohort throughout this journey. Dr. Valesky captained the ship and provided guidance and direction throughout the entire process—from initial entry into the program to graduation. His editing and APA expertise supported each draft along the way, and his calm and reassuring demeanor helped me meet each deadline. Dr. Rea served as a nurturing advisor who took time to listen and caused me to reflect on the curricular choices I was making. Dr. Wilkerson provided expertise in methodology and dedicated her time and energy to the research process.

I must also express my appreciation to my colleagues in Doctoral Cohort 3 and my dear friend Diane. In August 2012, we arrived on campus from various educational settings and possessed unique perspectives, but together we thoughtfully discussed educational theory, policy, and methodology. We responded to discussion boards, collaborated on authentic projects, and passed the comprehensive exams! Over this four-year period, we celebrated marriages and births, grieved over the loss of loved ones, and developed life-long friendships.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 9

List of Tables

Table 1 ...... 45

Table 2 ...... 46

Table 3 ...... 62

Table 4 ...... 63

Table 5 ...... 71

Table 6 ...... 74

Table 7 ...... 81

Table 8 ...... 85

Table 9 ...... 93

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 10

Chapter I

Introduction

For the purpose of this research, a veteran teacher is defined as one who possesses 15 years or more of teaching experience. As a veteran secondary teacher who began my teaching career in 1993, without the luxury of the internet or email, I have witnessed the emergence of technology and educators’ responses to its rapid influx. I watched as some veteran teachers avoided interaction with the new machinery, hoping computers would become another fleeting educational trend, and other veteran teachers embraced the idea of working with CD-ROMs, floppy disks, drill and practice programs, and the Internet. Some veteran teachers, who worried they would soon be replaced by computers, sought to criticize each innovative idea and piece of software. Thankfully, computers were not a short-lived trend and teachers have not been replaced by their intuitive programs; computers are now accessible in classrooms throughout the nation (Wachira & Keengwe, 2011). Classroom technology helps teachers perform necessary functions of data collection, planning, and communication, and it also allows students to become more active agents in their own learning (International Society for Technology in Education,

2016). Together, teachers and students have opportunities to collaborate globally, create online content, and solve problems based on current real world situations.

If the benefits of technology are so revolutionary, then why are some teachers reluctant to infuse this technology into their daily lessons? While many teachers have discovered the advantages of infusing technology by using classroom computers or tapping into students’ devices for educational endeavors, a commissioned report by the Nellie Mae Education

Foundation (Moeller & Reitzes, 2011) revealed that only 8% of teachers fully integrate TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 11 technology into the classroom, and only 23% of teachers felt they could integrate technology into the classroom. Ironically, the teachers who claim to integrate technology to foster constructivist practices which support student-centered learning are not characterized by researchers as being innovative or exceptionally empowering (Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008).

Similarly, Cuban (2001) explained that teachers’ practices remain the same even with the adoption of technology.

Unfortunately, our nation’s teachers may not be prepared to fulfill the promise of technology integration and prepare students for technology demands of the 21 st century workplace. While the incorporation of instructional technology is complex, with several variables contributing to successful technology integration, the key factor involves teachers’ attitudes toward technology (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997; Zhao & Frank, 2003). The classroom teacher is the most significant contributor or variable in regard to student success

(Darling-Hammond, 2000); therefore, the success of classroom technology and a Bring Your

Own Device (BYOD) program must rely heavily upon the teacher’s ability and motivation to employ appropriate and targeted pedagogy. According to Fullan (2013), the teacher must become the change agent and work at the center of the learning experience utilizing the pedagogy as the driving force and technology as the accelerator. The mere presence of technology will not enhance student learning; the classroom teacher must become the agent of change and utilize knowledge of technology resources to leverage technology as an integrated pedagogical tool (Fisher, 2006). Following her case study of six high school teachers and their perceptions of the use of instructional technology, Hertzler (2010) reinforced the idea that the teacher is the key element involving how technology integration occurs with students, and she TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 12 stated that more research needs to be conducted to determine in what ways a teacher’s level of confidence may affect how technology is integrated into the classroom.

A common thread being woven throughout current issues related to education and leadership is the use of technology and how teachers can employ technology tools to positively affect student learning (Cuban, 2001; Fullan, 2013; Koehler & Mishra, 2005). Technology is linked to accountability, pedagogy, policy, equity, and assessments. In a study conducted by

Agodini, Dynarski, Honey, and Levin (2003), they determined that student learning was enhanced in schools where teachers demonstrated an interest in using technology and the schools’ infrastructure supported their technology objectives. For teachers to integrate technology effectively into their instruction, they must possess a positive attitude toward technology (Sandholtz et al., 1997; Zhao & Frank, 2003). Because the integration of technology is becoming a vital part of teachers’ best practices (Pierson, 2001), educational leaders must be prepared to support the use of educational technologies by ensuring that teachers acquire the skills to navigate and utilize technology as a means to enhance learning, by building a school culture that fosters collaboration related to technology, and by adopting technology practices while providing professional development opportunities and technical support.

Statement of the Problem

Technological literacy has become a foundational skill related to effective teaching (Lee

& Tsai, 2010). Preservice and relatively new teachers, who are considered to be “digital natives”, are assumed to be comfortable with a variety of technical tools, whereas veteran teachers, those with a minimum of 15 years of teaching experience, frequently struggle to keep up with each new technological innovation in the marketplace and in the field of education.

Knowing how to operate a document camera or develop a comprehensive multi-media TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 13 presentation is not enough to ensure that teachers are using technology effectively to drive instruction (Lawless & Pellergino, 2007). According to Angeli and Valanides (2009), effective technology integration depends on a consideration of the interactions among technology, content, and pedagogy. Teachers must be able to discern which form of technology and software is best suited for the content; they also must adjust their pedagogy to support the computer application and differentiated needs of the students. Technology integration is achieved by effectively melding content, pedagogy, and technology (Pierson, 2001; Koehler and Mishra, 2005; Fullan,

2013). Teachers’ use of technology for the purposes of creating lessons, recording grades, or preparing presentations for lesson support are not examples of technology integration. Authentic technology integration allows the technology to seamlessly and invisibly integrate as part of the routine classroom environment (Wachira & Keengwe, 2011). This form of integration provides a shift from the traditional teaching model which involves direct instruction, and places the teacher in a coaching role which allows him or her to conference with students individually or in small groups (Keppler, Weiler, & Maas, 2014).

Making the computers and other devices available to students is only one part of the equation because technological devices such as iPads, laptops, Smart phones, and tablets, are simply tools; they are not effective without the proper pedagogy and classroom management in place (Wachira & Keengwe, 2011). Without a well-trained teacher, the devices may entertain the students and engage them in lower cognitive level activities, but they will not become effective learning tools (Fullan, 2013; Bates, 2001). Teachers need assistance and support as they work toward technology infusion that facilitates deep, meaningful engagement and learning (Lai,

2008; Law, 2008). Knowledge of pedagogy, as it relates to a technological classroom environment, needs to include strategies to promote student-centered and collaborative learning TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 14

(Webb & Cox, 2003). Utilizing digital textbooks on a large scale without a well-constructed pedagogical plan is “folly” (Fullan, 2013, p.61). In addition, teachers need technology-related management skills to monitor and trouble-shoot technical issues related to hardware and software functions (Hew & Brush, 2007).

This lack of integration, expertise, and confidence may be one of the largest hurdles facing the integration of technology in the classroom. Wozney, Venkatesh, and Abrami (2006) surveyed 764 teachers and found that the greatest predictor of teachers’ technology use was their level of confidence in terms of achieving instructional goals by incorporating technology.

Ramsay, Arman, and Pursel (2014) concluded that teachers may not be willing to incorporate new or unfamiliar technology unless they possess a certain degree of familiarity with the program or device. Teachers’ perceptions of technology can determine whether technology will play an integral role in student learning or if technology will remain an ancillary tool for supplemental use only (Pierson, 2001). In a broader sense, teachers’ beliefs in their personal efficacy to positively impact student learning affects the formation of the specific learning environments they develop and the degree of their students’ academic progress (Bandura,1993).

According to researchers Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986), expertise in any field is developed through a series of five stages in which a beginner may simply follow the rules of a given domain but still lack authentic understanding; conversely, the expert, following years of experience, develops skills to the point of being able to make connections across dissimilar domains. Similarly, when focusing on the development of pedagogical expertise, Berliner

(1994) noted how teachers begin at the novice stage and may eventually reach the final stage of expert. With the more formal stages of technology adoption offered by Dwyer, Ringstaff, and

Sandholtz (1991), the novice is described as a teacher with low level technological knowledge TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 15 and sporadic technology, and the innovator who is in the intuitive stage infuses technology to the point of shifting roles to become more student-centered. The challenge for school leaders and those involved in directing professional development is to support the skills and pedagogical growth of teachers as they continue to develop expertise related to technology integration.

By understanding teachers’ dispositions regarding the instructional use of technology, school leaders can adjust and direct various forms of professional development to address issues related to self-efficacy, pedagogy, and technology-related skills. The purposes of this mixed methods study are to describe the beliefs, attitudes, and experiences of veteran secondary teachers in a Southwest Florida public school district in regard to the integration of educational technology in their classrooms and to gain an understanding of the personal and school-based barriers veteran teachers may face as they strive to develop technology-infused classrooms. The conclusions and recommendations which will be synthesized from the data may be used by school and district leaders to review professional development and other forms of teacher support as related to the integration of technology in classroom instruction. In this study I also acknowledge the reality that not all classroom learning experiences need to include the use of technology, and reinforce the understanding of technology as a tool which can be used to engage students and enhance learning but also can be misused when applied solely to lower-level cognitive tasks.

To gain an understanding of how teachers’ perceptions of technology use, the degree of technology integration, and current skill levels in terms of technology, I have selected the

Technology Use and Perceptions (TUPS) survey developed by the Florida Center for

Instructional Technology at the University of South Florida. The 200 question survey targets specific areas related to my study; the survey sections include: technology access and support, TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 16 preparation for technology use, perceptions of technology use, confidence and comfort using technology, technology integration, teacher and student use of technology, and technology skills and usefulness. In a study conducted by Hogarty, Lang, and Kromrey (2003), an exploratory factor analysis was conducted within each section of the survey instrument, and the composite scores showed acceptable levels of reliability, with coefficient alpha ranging from .74 to .92.

Researchers interested in understanding teachers’ attitudes toward and uses of technology in their instruction employed TUPS in a large school district in Florida (Barron, Kemker, Hames, and

Kalaydjian, 2003). This research tool has been used to guide decision-making in school districts, including the Southwest Florida district in which I will be conducting my research (J. Welsh, personal communication, February 25, 2016).

Research Questions

Central Question

How are veteran teachers in secondary education being affected by the pedagogical

movement toward technology-infused classrooms?

Subquestions

• How do veteran secondary teachers perceive technology use?

• To what degree does a veteran secondary teacher’s confidence and comfort

using technology impact his or her motivation to employ instructional

technology in the classroom?

• In what ways do veteran secondary teachers integrate technology into their

instruction?

• What is the essence of veteran secondary teachers’ experiences with the

phenomenon of technology integration? TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 17

Definition of Terms

Throughout this study, specific terms will be used to describe the subjects, technology, and instructional practices. The terms secondary veteran teacher, digital learning, technology- infused classroom, and educational technology will be clarified in order to ensure a consistency in regard to usage and understanding.

For the purposes of this study, a secondary veteran teacher is defined as a teacher who possesses a minimum of 15 years experience as a classroom teacher and is currently working in grades 6 through 12 in the public school system.

A technology-infused classroom is one in which the teacher has seamlessly incorporated the use of various technological tools and programs to support curricular content and pedagogy.

Melding technology, content, and pedagogy is an important goal for teachers (Pierson, 2001).

While teachers may utilize technology for the purposes of planning lessons, recording grades, and communicating with parents, these practices do not support a technology-infused classroom.

Instead, the infusion of technology occurs when teachers use available technology to support instruction as a means of developing the students’ understanding of curricular content in a lesson or unit.

School-based technology has come a long way since the first microcomputers entered the school setting in 1977 (Roblyer & Doering, 2010). Digital learning has evolved from lower level drill and tutorial functions to skills required to live and function in a digital world. Digital learning also amounts to more than just placing a digital device in the hands of students (Fullan,

2013). When used in this study, the term digital learning is defined as the process by which learning is enhanced and extended by utilizing technology to clarify complex processes, economize time, promote collaboration, and increase engagement. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 18

The term educational technology pervades studies, journal articles, and books which focus on teaching with the support of technology. Throughout this dissertation, educational technology is used to define the process of applying technological hardware and software for educational purposes.

Significance of the Study

The veteran secondary teacher is a valuable asset in the educational field, yet has not been the main focus of predominant research studies in regard to technology infusion. Veteran secondary teachers are content experts, and typically, they enjoy the subject area and facets of the curriculum while having lower levels of confidence and self-efficacy with educational and

Web technology (Lee & Tsai, 2010). Veteran secondary teachers serve their schools as new teacher mentors, department chairpersons, classroom management experts, and pedagogical specialists; as such, their value to the school is significant. However, veteran secondary teachers may not be technology experts, since unlike preservice teachers, they did not grow up with technology as part of their education, especially in terms of technology integration. The

Windows 95 operating system was not released until 1995, with the development of technology standards following in 1998 (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2010). Therefore, technology tools and resources were foreign, unknown entities for a majority of veteran teachers who began teaching between 1985 and 2000. My study is significant since research regarding veteran secondary teachers’ disposition toward instructional technology integration is limited. More attention has been directed to preservice teachers and their need for preparation in regarding to classroom technology use. Additionally, understanding how to best build capacity and support knowledge and skills of veteran secondary teachers in terms of technology infusion is vital to positively impact students’ learning and achievement in the 21st century. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 19

Outline of Remainder of the Study

The review of literature in Chapter 2 will focus on key themes involving teachers and technology that resonated in books, scholarly articles, and dissertations. A predominant message will concentrate on classroom technology as a tool and the teacher as the pedagogical master.

Current research stresses the importance of infusing various forms of technology into instruction versus using classroom technology tools as peripheral add-ons. Barriers which limit access and innovation will be acknowledged and addressed. This section also will investigate the role of self-efficacy and motivation in terms of a teacher’s readiness for technology adoption, and the potential for peer mentoring and professional development programs to assist veteran secondary teachers with technology use.

Chapter 3 will provide a description of the population of veteran secondary teachers from three high school and two middle schools in Southwest Florida who were surveyed, and interviewed for this mixed methods study, as well as the methodology used for sampling. I will define key variables and provide specific information regarding the data collection instruments, including the TUPS and the interview questions used for the qualitative portion of the study.

The Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Design (Creswell, 2012) will allow me to employ two phases; first, I will collect quantitative data by utilizing the TUPS. Additionally, I will collect qualitative data by conducting in depth interviews with 10 veteran secondary teachers who volunteer for this portion of the study. The open-ended questions will serve as the second data collection instrument, which will focus on veteran secondary teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and experiences regarding digital learning. In this section, the research design, data analysis procedures, and limitations for both quantitative and qualitative portions of the study will be reviewed. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 20

In Chapter 4 the results of the TUPS will be discussed utilizing quantitative analysis in which I will note response rates, check for bias in responses, conduct descriptive analysis, and employ inferential statistics. I will employ a descriptive analysis of the data to summarize significant trends and summed scores for specific categories of survey items. I will summarize the significant results through a series of explanations and tables related to the specific categories of the survey sections which include: perceptions of technology use, confidence and comfort using technology, and technology integration. I will provide a qualitative analysis of the technology infusion phenomenon through the use of a phenomenological study which describes how the 10 veteran secondary teachers experienced the phenomenon of technology integration and captures the essence of this experience. I will bracket my biases, transcribe interviews, create horizontalization of the data, group significant statements into thematic categories, and describe how the study participants experienced the phenomenon (Creswell, 2013). By sharing their stories, these veteran secondary teachers will provide unique perspective regarding their experiences with technology and how the pressure to infuse technology into their instructional practices has affected them personally and professionally.

In Chapter 5, conclusions drawn from both the quantitative and qualitative data will be presented, and based on my conclusions, I will provide recommendations for teachers and school leaders who are interested in creating more effective professional development and peer mentoring programs focused on technology integration and based on adult learning and social cognitive theories.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 21

Chapter II

Review of Literature

The vision of fully integrated technological classrooms and a one-to-one student-device ratio is becoming a reality; as Fullan (2013) stated, “the floodgates are opening” and “resistance is futile” (p.41). However, the digital revolution, which so many educators anticipate, may turn into a digital disaster if it is not integrated properly. Furthermore, the organizational support— vision, culture, leadership, training—for the use of technology in schools is severely underdeveloped (Fullan, 2013).

Access to Technology

Initial problems with technology integration included access to computers and the

Internet; in the early 1980s the primary goal for school leaders was to reduce the ratio of 92 students per computer (Cuban, 2001). Progress has been made since then; according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics, 2010), 97% of teachers had at least one computer in the classroom and 54% of teachers had access to mobile labs. The ratio of students to computers in the classroom daily was 5.3 to 1. Internet access was available on 93% of classroom computers, and also was available on 96% of computers which could be brought to the classroom. One could infer that seven years later with the introduction of computer-based assessments and a greater focus on instructional technology, the ratio of computers per classroom and flexible access is even greater, especially in affluent school districts (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010).

Seen as a remedy to technology access, many districts nationwide initiated some form of

Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs in an attempt to increase access to technology in the classrooms. Kiger and Herro (2015) studied a Midwestern school district comprised of five TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 22 elementary schools, two intermediate schools, and one high school, and they found that high school students had access to a variety of technical devices and brought them to school as part of the BYOD program in numbers greater than expected. Because many one-to-one technology initiatives have failed due to high initial costs and ongoing maintenance, many school districts have promoted BYOD in an attempt to leverage those devices for the purpose of instruction

(Sheninger, 2015). In a case study, Grant, Tamim, Brown, Sweeney, and Ferguson (2015) selected nine teachers from K-12 classrooms to learn more about the teachers’ experiences integrating students’ mobile computing devices into class lessons. The teachers reported the students’ positive motivation and engagement during BYOD, and administrators supported the teachers’ use of BYOD in enhancing the curricula. Issues related to the need for technical support and relevant training also emerged as themes. Cuban’s (2001) commentary on the one- to-one access issue presented a more pessimistic view focused less on the device and more on the core teaching practices that he believed will remain the same until the middle of the 21 st century.

Technology Integration

Access to technology, while still a concern, has taken a back seat to the dilemma of successful technology integration. According to Cuban (2003), 21 st century teachers typically use the same tools as those who occupied the classroom years before them. Picciano (2006) explained that teachers who were trained prior to the early 1990s were not required to take specific educational technology courses as part of their preservice education or teacher certification program. Due to this void, many veteran teachers have been reluctant or slow to develop the necessary skills to support technology infusion (Picciano, 2006). Veteran teachers may be uncomfortable with having to modify their instructional delivery style, and this discomfort can result in a negative reaction to technology in the classroom (Norton & Sprague, TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 23

2001). As consumers of technology in a modern world, veteran teachers have been provided with inservice training, the quality of which varies from district to district, and yet these teachers still may need pedagogical support as they experiment with instruction that involves technology integration (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). When veteran teachers feel inadequate in terms of their readiness to incorporate technology, their concerns may originate from a genuine lack of knowledge, uncertainty about effective use, or lack of digital resources (Project

Tomorrow, 2014).

Teachers’ Technology Skills

The push for technology proficiency has been in force for over a decade. Technology was deemed by the U. S. Department of Education (U. S. Department of Education, 2003) as “an integral part of providing a high-quality education” (p. 3). The No Child Left Behind Act (U. S.

Department of Education, 2001) supports recruitment and retention of high quality teachers who are not only experts in content and pedagogy, but also possess the technology-support skills to differentiate instruction and employ data-driven instructional decisions. Additionally, the

International Society for Technology Education (International Society for Technology

Education, 2016) which provides five National Educational Technology Standards (NETS-T) and performance indicators for teachers, established criteria for effective teachers. The NETS-T include the use of technology to support digital-age practices and learning, and focus on using digital resources and tools as a means of engaging students with collaborative experiences which require them to solve authentic, real-world problems. Nonetheless, many veteran teachers have been hesitant to employ technology and accompanying pedagogical strategies as the norm for their instructional practice or support for student learning (Keppler, Weiler, & Maas, 2014). TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 24

Best Practices

Employing technology as a means to support teacher-directed learning, which includes various forms of explicit teaching, does not support the best practices for technology integration

(Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Fullan, 2013). Lower-level uses of technology continue to dominate classroom applications; these include PowerPoint lesson presentations, internet searches, and drill-style applications (Maddux & Johnson, 2006; Fullan, 2013). Many teachers continue to teach the use of technology instead of teaching with technology; teachers have also experienced the challenge of how to integrate technology without sacrificing the breadth and depth of the content (Cuban, 2001).

Koehler and Mishra (2005) described the skill or competency technology integration as

Technological Pedagogical And Content Knowledge (TPACK). The researchers described the framework as a complex interaction among content, pedagogy, and technology and explained how the “interaction of these bodies of knowledge, both theoretically and in practice, produces types of flexible knowledge needed to successfully [sic ] integrate technology use into teaching”

(p. 60). In a study of 354 practicing teachers in Singapore, researchers concluded that teachers with more teaching experience tended to be less confident with TPACK (Joyce Hwee, Chai, and

Ching-Chung, 2014). Bork (1985) supported the idea that the application of a tool, in this case technology, is only meaningful when the tools are being used by students to solve real-world problems. He claimed, “every intellectual tool must be demonstrated to be educationally useful, to contribute in some way to the learning process” (p. 9).

In his book Stratosphere , Fullan (2013) referenced Park Manor Public School in Elmira,

Canada which serves students in grades 6 to 8; the school had incorporated the TPAK model.

The school’s framework incorporates the integration of “technological tools, exemplary TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 25 pedagogy, rich learning tasks, and 21 st century learning skills” which makes “pedagogy the driver with student learning at the center and technology as the Formula 1 Grand Prix” (p. 51).

The teachers at this model school also evaluate the use of technology by assuring that the use of technology supports the students in terms of engagement, speed, and quality of learning and achievement. The strategic use of technology is to “accelerate and deepen” the learning (p. 53).

Flipped Classroom

The flipped classroom is another example of a pedagogical shift in the way in which teachers are employing technology. While several models and interpretations exist, the most common style of flipped classroom model utilizes teacher-created videos and interactive lessons online which students access prior to class (Tucker, 2012). The lessons are accessed at home allowing students opportunities to review, ponder, and develop questions regarding the material presented. During class, the teacher is able to answer questions, address misconceptions, provide opportunities to collaborate, and meet with individual students. Some teachers are also embracing blogs, podcasts, webinars, and social media as a means to enhance both delivery of information and opportunities for students to demonstrate skills and mastery. The challenge is to utilize these forms of technology without compromising academic integrity (Courts & Tucker,

2012).

Continuum of Integration

Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, (2010) explained how teachers may find themselves moving among the continuum of four development stages when infusing technology: beginning, developing, proficient, and transformative. The researchers describe the beginning phase as one in which teacher-directed activities control how technology is used to create products or conduct research. As the teacher progresses into the developing phase, the directive role shifts slightly to TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 26 allow for more student choice and involvement, and the resources and activities involving technology are more purposefully selected. The proficient phase emerges as the teacher builds additional skills and confidence with technology; as a result, learning activities promote rigor encourage students to engage in deeper thinking, and instruction may become more individualized. Student-directed learning is the hallmark of the transformative phase. A classroom observer may witness self-selected technology being used to support student collaboration and involvement with real world problems.

While many success stories exist, researchers continue to caution school leaders and teachers to avoid using technology simply for appearance sake (Cuban, 2003; Fullan, 2013;

Koehler & Mishra, 2005). While technology is a worthwhile tool which can be incorporated into instruction to improve learning, it should not be employed as an academic intervention or as a sole source of instruction (Welsh & Papke, 2013). Relying primarily on technology is an error which veteran, novice, and experienced teachers make. McCrory (2006) explained a specific form of technology will not fits every pedagogical or content application. Therefore, teachers need to equip themselves with technical skills and knowledge to understand the appropriateness of a given technology before consideration is give to adding technology to specific learning activities or content related tasks.

Technology as a Tool

While Welsh and Papke (2013) claimed there is no singular or exact way in which to infuse technology into instruction, there certainly are adverse applications and incorrect ways to employ technology. Experts advised that teachers must be trained and knowledgeable in determining whether the use of the computer in a particular lesson or unit is the most beneficial to support the curriculum or area of study. Furthermore, teachers should determine the use of TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 27 technology based on when and how the instructional capability of the software, application, or computer can be infused to help students achieve specific learning objectives. Teachers should not rely on technology, whether an online video, selected software, or web-based application, to be responsible for the content and skills of an entire lesson (Norton & Sprague, 2001). Picciano

(2006) warned that while computer technology has become an important tool for teachers and students, it is “not a substitute for caring, talented human beings” (p. 241). Fullan (2013) explained technology is merely a tool which must be engaged selectively and purposefully by teachers with an understanding of pedagogy. Content knowledge, pedagogical savvy, and technology use when balanced correctly can be integrated by skillful teachers who can determine if, when, and how technology should be incorporated into a learning experience (Fullan, 2003;

Hughes, 2005). Veteran teachers can be capable of making these decisions when provided the training and support required to be evaluative (Cox, 2013).

Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2010) provided four recommendations for teachers who are striving to achieve technology integration that supports student learning. First, they encouraged teachers to identify specific technologies vital in supporting learning goals, and teachers also need to understand how students will use the technology tools to demonstrate mastery of the goals. Instead of using technology for one portion of learning—the anticipatory set, content search, or presentation—appropriate technologies should be employed throughout the learning process. Finally these authors stated that teachers should focus on their professional learning needs by turning to technology to address issues related to pedagogy and implementation as it related to technology.

When striving to learn more about instructional technology, teachers turn to district-based and corporate sponsored professional development seminars, teacher trainings, webinars, and TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 28 conferences (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2009). In addition, veteran teachers may also seek to collaborate with peers who possess more experience or knowledge of technology (Cox, 2013).

Teachers also look to their school leaders and administrators who maintain a shared vision for technology use and employ a supportive learning network through inservice workshops, lesson study, and peer coaches (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).

Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs

Prior to the onset of an actual training, teachers may have developed preconceived notions, and these beliefs provide the lens through which the teacher will view or process the information offered by the professional development facilitator (Tillema, 1995). The researcher also explained that teachers may hold steadfast beliefs about their teaching style, subject matter, and pedagogical framework; these foundational beliefs also impact how knowledge is received, processed, and stored. Even when teachers are receptive to the idea that technology can assist them with accomplishing professional or administrative tasks, teachers may be reluctant to employ technology with their students because their existing belief system may not accept this change (Hew & Brush, 2007). Unlike preservice or novice teachers whose pedagogical beliefs are continuing to be shaped and formed, veteran teachers may have pedagogical beliefs that are well established; therefore, these beliefs are more difficult to change (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-

Leftwich, 2010). Kagan (1992) asserted beliefs are influential predictors of behavior, and beliefs may hold even stronger influence than knowledge when determining how teachers understand and address specific tasks or issues. Furthermore, Kagan links a teacher’s beliefs to a similar style of teaching. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 29

Beliefs about Technology

Many teachers may not believe in the advantages of using computer technology in the classroom (Judson, 2006; Hardcastle, 2008). In fact, some teachers, especially veteran teachers, may feel threatened by technology and view it as unwieldy, impersonal, or as an intruder in their classroom environment (Picciano, 2006). The demands of managing technology, monitoring computer-assisted instruction, and acting upon the diagnosis provided by computer programs may place teachers in an uncomfortable and unfamiliar role (Burke, 2014). However, individuals who believe strongly in their capabilities may face demanding tasks, like technology integration, as challenges instead of threats (Lee & Tsai, 2010; Norton & Sprague, 2001). Hsu

(2016) supports the original claim made by Pajares (1992) that teachers’ beliefs are one of best predictors of how they will approach technology integration in their classrooms.

Professional development may have an impact on teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about technology. Gorder (2008) explained that teachers need to understand how to use technology and why it is an important component of the learning process before technology integration can be achieved successfully. Information about technology and its myriad classroom uses are filtered through teachers’ current belief systems and then classified into a specific category regarding its perceived usefulness as an innovation; whereas, the technology may be perceived along a continuum as a useful classroom tool or another fleeting trend (Kagan, 1992).

In his executive summary of a community and technical college faculty survey,

Hardcastle (2008) reported that instructors who identified themselves as proficient users of technology were more likely to have positive attitudes about the benefits and role of technology in their classes. Additionally, these proficient users of technology sought additional training and taught more classes that incorporated technology. However, Hardcastle also found a trend TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 30 emerged among faculty in older age groups; these faculty members tended to be more restrained when responding about the benefits of technology in terms of positively impacting student learning.

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Technology

In his study of technology integration which included interviews with three teachers with more than 10 years teaching experience, Cox (2013) focused on four themes which included planning for technology, addressing teacher concerns, understanding and addressing technological ability differences amongst teachers, and investigating comentorship and collaboration options. His analysis of the qualitative data indicated the perceived successes and failures that the teachers experienced when integrating technology in their classrooms were the factors that most influenced technology integration. Similarly, Lee and Tsai (2010) studied 558

K-12 teachers in Taiwan and found positive correlations between self-efficacy and positive attitudes toward technology. If teachers perceive themselves to be successful or experience small successes, then they may be more likely to continue integrating technology; this relationship is supported Bandura’s (1997) concept of perceived self-efficacy, which focuses on judgments of personal capability.

Positive Experiences

Mueller et al. (2008), noted similar findings when explaining how teachers’ confidence and beliefs in technology are fostered as a result of positive experiences with technology. In addition, Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2007) focused on how the benefits of small successful experiences with technology could build teachers’ self-efficacy. An individual’s self-efficacy also may be influenced by prior performance; therefore, those leading professional development should TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 31 understand a teachers’ perceptions of their abilities with technology as well as their actual abilities (Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinex-Pons, 1992).

Verbal Reinforcement

Positive experiences are not the same as positive, supportive verbal reinforcement; however, positive comments, or verbal rewards, may instill confidence. The results of the meta- analysis conducted by Deci, Koestner, Ryan, and Cameron (2001) indicate that while the use of tangible rewards undermines intrinsic motivation for children, verbal rewards tended to enhance intrinsic motivation, especially with adults. Researchers of a large-scale study of primary and secondary teachers in the Netherlands suggested that persuasive communication focusing on the positive outcomes of technology training could promote positive feelings and attitudes regarding digital learning (Van Acker, van Buuren, Kreijins, & Vermeulen, 2013). Skinner (1954) emphasized the importance of timely reinforcement and demonstrated that practice without feedback or reinforcement produced little learning.

Applied Learning

According to Duhaney (2001), behavioral reinforcement is not enough; instead, elements of both the constructivist and behaviorist approaches should be considered when integrating technology to support pedagogy and learning. Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2010) suggested the use of a constructivist approach that includes problem-based learning and inquiry methods which encourage learners to work collaboratively solving real-world problems with the support of various technological tools and software. Self-efficacy also grows when teachers are encouraged to focus their technology efforts on their immediate instructional needs (Kanaya, Light, & Culp,

2005; Zhao & Cziko, 2001). TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 32

Bandura (1977) regarded enactive mastery experiences as the “most influential source of efficacy information because they provide the most authentic evidence of whether one can master whatever it takes to succeed” (p. 80). Vicarious experiences, those experiences which an individual can compare his or her performance to peers, also serve to promote self-efficacy

Social reinforcement, can also serve to strengthen efficacy, although it is not the strongest source of efficacy (Bandura, 1977).

Expectations and Self-Efficacy

Teachers’ responses to, engagement in, and use of various forms of training are impacted by their expectations that they will be able to use the skills and knowledge positively to impact student learning (Mueller et al., 2008). Bandura (1977) concluded, “beliefs of personal efficacy constitute the key factor of human agency. If people believe they have no power to produce results, they will not attempt to make things happen” (p. 3). Bandura perceived self-efficacy as less concerned with the actual skill, and more focused on the individual’s belief about what can be achieved with a specific skill set. In terms of technology skills, when teachers observe how the use of technology promotes student success, the teachers’ confidence—self-efficacy—also increases (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2007).

Studies also have shown that an individual’s self-efficacy may be influenced by a cognitive weighting process that takes into consideration such factors as prior performance, self- perceptions of ability, effort expended, task difficulty, and the amount of assistance received

(Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinex-Pons, 1992). Wozney, Venkatesh, and Abrami (2006) surveyed 764 teachers and found that the greatest predictor of teachers’ technology use was their level of confidence in terms of achieving instructional goals by incorporating technology. The power and influence of self-efficacy is so strong that “different people with similar skills, or the TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 33 same person under different circumstances, may perform poorly, adequately, or extraordinarily, depending on fluctuations in their beliefs of personal efficacy” (Bandura, 1925, p. 37).

The Role of School Culture

School Culture Defined

A school’s culture is defined as a “complex system of relationships, norms, practices, beliefs, and assumptions (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2010, p. 416). Stolp and Smith

(1995) defined school culture as historically transmitted patterns of meaning that include the norms, values, beliefs, traditions, and myths understood, maybe in varying degrees, by members of the school community. Definitions of school culture are diverse and range from broad beliefs to peer pressure (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2009). Schein (1992) defined the culture of an organization as the basic assumptions the organization made as it struggled with internal and external forces. Willower (1984) described the school’s culture as its essence, composed of the traditions, beliefs, policies, and norms of the school. A simplistic yet profound definition of culture is summed up as, the way things are done around here (Burke & Litwin,1989).

Glickman (1993) provided the idea of a cultural continuum which offers a unique perspective. Utilizing three stages along the continuum, he classified school culture as conventional, congenial, and collegial. The conventional school is represented as a place where teachers work in a fairly isolated and autonomous manner; they also may be competitive. At the other end of the continuum lies the congenial school where friendship dominates the culture, and maintaining harmony is paramount.

Glasser (1990) believed that a quality school included a culture which focused on a shared vision and was void of fear and coercion. Successful schools, according to Fullan (2008) had a much more demanding culture; these schools hungered for improvement, promoted TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 34 excellence, and maintained hope for every child. Gossen & Anderson (1995) concluded that a quality school enjoys a collegial culture of roles and relationships in which each individual member is valued and encouraged to contribute his or her own gifts and perspectives. A school’s common instructional practices and the beliefs, values, and assumptions that support those practices, affect teachers and their response to change (Glickman et al., 2010).

How Culture Affects Teachers

The school’s culture may also impact a teacher’s motivation and self-efficacy. For example, Zhao and Frank (2003) explained when the administration and school community provides support and shares positive expectations, teachers’ may be more willing to integrate technology into their instruction. This type of supportive environment fosters a school culture which allows for risk-taking and experimentation with technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-

Leftwich, 2009). Conversely, teachers are less likely to adopt technology innovations if the practices deviate too far from the current practices of teachers and administrators at the school

(Zhao & Frank, 2003).

Culture and Technology

In her study regarding faculty use of technology at Bellevue Community College in

Seattle, Washington, Hutchinson (2001) noted the importance of institutional culture in regard to technological innovation. Hutchinson credited a nurturing environment to the success of instructors who were learning the basic functions of email to the intricacies of designing a new program. The culture at the college had been created to support faculty members by providing ongoing professional development opportunities, training tailored to their personal needs, time to learn about the technological tools and opportunities to incorporate new skills incrementally. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 35

In her case study of middle-aged teachers, Plair (2010) explored the effectiveness of professional development in terms of building and sustaining teachers’ technology skills. The teachers reported the need for continual support from a knowledgeable individual who could add to their proficiency and foster efficacy as they worked to integrate technology into their educational practice. Plair’s findings support the need for ongoing support from tech savvy coaches and peer mentors. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) explained how secondary teachers may benefit from a school culture that values subject area expertise and organizes teachers into subject-based teams, since these teams can be supportive of meaningful technology use, even if the overall school culture lacks this type of support.

Mentoring and Modeling

Schools that possess a culture of lifelong and professional learning provide opportunities for mentoring, modeling, and peer coaching. Modeling has been shown as a valid method of increasing self-efficacy, and peer models were found to be one of the best approaches to bolsters self-efficacy and achievement (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). Bandura (1986) also refers to a social learning phenomenon known as imitation, and he explained that individuals will imitate and assimilate behaviors, especially if positive observational experiences or other forms of positive rewards are included.

Peer and Coach Support

Coaches and mentors can provide opportunities for social learning. As an approach to technology integration, coaching or mentoring involves well-trained mentors who possess technology experience supporting teachers who possess less experience with technology integration (Oliver & Townsend, 2013). Hardcastle (2008) reported that peers were cited as a primary source of technology information, and faculty members valued and learned to use TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 36 instructional technologies when provided with opportunities for peer-to-peer interaction.

Picciano (2006) determined that one-on-one coaching sessions which lasted one to two hours and included hands-on activities as a fundamental aspect of the sessions were more effective than extended, large group trainings. While these methods may be effective for veteran teachers to become more comfortable and confident with instructional technology, some veteran teachers may require extended or long-term support.

Mentoring

As a component of an integrated technology plan, Kopcha (2010) recommended teacher mentoring as part of a technology integration model that includes community practice as a component. Kopcha’s model focuses on four stages of technology adoption that include the initial setup, teacher preparation, curricular reform, and community practice. These are recursive in nature, and together they assist in meeting the challenges of time for implementation and training, technology access, and teacher belief systems. According to Kopcha, coaching and mentoring may provide a certain level of comfort for teachers who find themselves at the lower end of the learning curve. From a survey of 35 responding university and colleges, Bates (2001) concluded that before teachers can focus on the educational benefits of technology, they first must reach a minimum comfort level with the technology they are planning to incorporate into their lessons. The nonthreatening nature of a mentoring relationship or training facilitated by individuals who understand the dynamics of self-efficacy may be able to provide a nonthreatening environment which will promote learning. According to Glickman, Gordon, and

Ross-Gordon (2010), teachers who are in need of assistance typically turn to colleagues first for advice and feedback; therefore, peer mentors and peer coaches may be the first step for teachers who are seeking assistance with technology integration. In a study of three preservice teachers TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 37 and their mentor teachers, with a range of 14 to 18 years of teaching experience, the researchers found that preservice teachers possessed more technical skills, and this actually motivated the mentor teachers to actively pursue knowledge about those technology skills and incorporate more innovative technology into their lessons (Lui, Hsien-Chang, & Yo-Ting, 2015).

Train-the-Trainer

The train-the-trainer model also has been recognized as an effective method of supporting teachers (Oliver & Townsend, 2013). Teachers may find they relate better to colleagues who are a bit more advanced in using technology in the classroom. This approach also can be very effective in fostering a team attitude and can help to build a spirit of camaraderie among the teaching staff which may being in the area of technology but transfers to other areas throughout the school (Picciano, 2006).

Adopting Innovations

When explaining how teachers adopt new technologies, Cuban (2001) referred to the classic S Curve; this curve shows how market share increases as an innovation is accepted by early adopters to the late majority adopters, until the curve finally plateaus at the saturation level.

The S Curve was originally developed by Rogers (1962) and his diffusion of innovations theory, to explain how innovations are adopted by society. In terms of teachers and technology, Cuban

(2001) used the S Curve model to illustrate how technological innovations in schools are first adopted by innovative teachers who demonstrate a keen interest in technology, trailed by early adopters who pave the way for those who will gradually accept the innovation, and then a sluggish welcome by the remaining naysayers (p. 140). These innovative teachers and early adopter may be encouraged to serve as mentors, models, and peer coaches. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 38

Adult Learning Theory

While self-efficacy, motivation, and collegial support provide a solid foundation for technology training for teachers, school leaders and those involved in developing and facilitating professional development sessions must also be knowledgeable of andragogy, the art and science of helping adults learn, so they can address the distinct needs of the adult learner (Knowles,

Holton & Swanson, 1998). As adult learners, teachers have agency over their learning; this means adult learners control their receptiveness and engagement in regard to their learning.

Adult learners choose what they learn and when they learn (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). Too often, however, training sessions for teachers are orchestrated much in the same way lessons are provided for students. Adult learning should be more learner-focused and self-directed

(Glickman et al., 2010).

Andragogy

Knowles (1970) exemplified the idea that learning is an internal process with many interrelated components. As such, andragogy is based on six assumptions about the adult learner:

1. The autonomous and self-directed nature of the adult learner must be considered.

2. Individuals, in this case teacher, must understand the value of learning about

technology.

3. The participants need to understand why they need to learn about it.

4. The teachers must also feel as though they can draw from previous experience.

5. Teachers must believe their experience matters. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 39

6. Another important factor, and one that many trainings lack, is the orientation to

learning; teachers must see an immediate application—one that is problem-centered or

task-oriented—instead of a grandiose plan for future use.

Infusing Content

In her case study of four English teachers, Hughes (2005) concluded that in regard to learning about instructional technology, the training needs to be grounded in content-based, technology examples in order to be effective. Furthermore, she explained that veteran teachers, those with more professional knowledge, were able to develop innovative technology skills and pedagogy if they were able to use learning goals for their current curriculum and lessons as part of the technology training. This corresponds with the idea which Knowles (1970) brought forth regarding the adult learner’s need for immediate application. Additionally, professional development that includes technology training should be situated within the context of the teachers’ various curricular needs since this type of training will more likely result in teacher behavior change (Ertmer & Ottenbrieit-Leftwich, 2010).

Training Implications

Bambara (2002) explained how one theory cannot adequately explain the complexity of the human condition, and viewed theories as mental frameworks which had been generated to assist with the explanation of what is difficult to understand. While several learning theories may be presented to explain the complexity of adult learning, one theory should not direct nor dominate plans for training.

Hew and Brush (2007) recommend when planning professional development for technology integration, school leaders and trainers should consider teachers’ knowledge and skills related to technology, technology-supported pedagogy, and technology-related classroom TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 40 management. While understanding the teachers’ knowledge and skills, trainers should strive to encourage small changes within the teacher’s context which is viewed as a long-term strategy for facilitating change (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).

Barriers to Technology Integration

Technology is in a continuous state of change and is accelerating in ways our society can barely imagine (Fullan, 2013). Cox (2013) describes technology as a “constantly moving matrix of hardware, software, and human interaction” (p. 209). The explosiveness of this innovation has challenged school administrators to equip classrooms with current technology tools and provide teachers with the most up-to-date training (Cuban, 2003; Hardcastle, 2008). Barriers, like these, continue to interfere with schoolwide and nationwide instructional technology infusion.

Lack of Time and Support

In her mixed methods study, Cottle (2010) examined the pre and post levels of integrating technology following a professional development course entitled Infusing

Technology . While the participants levels of personal computer use and current instructional practices increased slightly, the group interviews which followed revealed teachers’ acknowledgements of various constraints in regard to assimilating and utilizing the information.

These barriers included: lack of time for learning, practicing, and planning; insufficient technical support and access; and the demands for other instructional priorities related to testing and new textbook materials. Many of these barriers were confirmed by Cox (2013) in his qualitative research that focused on three teachers in an urban western Canadian school district.

The teachers reported “feelings of frustration and stress which they believed were caused by TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 41 bureaucracy, time constraints, past failures with technology integration, external pressures and expectations, and inefficiencies” (p. 210).

When studying two high schools in Silicon Valley Cuban (2001) questioned why ample access to technology did not equate to high use by teachers. His data revealed two main deterrents—lack of time and inadequate training. The teachers he interviewed were frustrated by the lack of time to locate software or programs and then experiment with them. Additionally, they explained the limited opportunity for training with applications they found to be relevant to their curriculum.

The need for time and practice is predominant among the list of barriers. In a national study of teachers who were identified as experienced and accomplished in integrating technology into their teaching, found that it took several years of practice to master computer-based teaching approaches. A major recommendation of this study was that there should be ample support and time for teachers not only to learn how to use technology but also to plan carefully for its use in the classroom (Sheingold & Hadley, 1990). Ongoing support is also recommended by Bandura and Schunk (1981) so when teachers are faced with new problems related to technology integration, they will not doubt their abilities and stop using the technology.

Technology Malfunctions

Ironically, technology itself has been labeled as a possible barrier to technological integration (Zhao & Frank, 2003). When teachers experience equipment failure, slow internet access, or inadequate software, they may be reluctant to incorporated technology into their lessons. Trotter (1999) concurred noting that despite adequate training, teachers experience problems such as the lack of enough hardware, poor support services, or inappropriate software which have severely limited teachers’ ability to integrate technology in the classroom. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 42

On a more positive note, in his report involving technology use in community and technical colleges in Washington State, Hardcastle (2008) reported that faculty members were less likely to use more advanced technology. Other barriers included under-equipped and poorly organized classrooms and a lack of technical support. However, while inadequate technology infrastructure limited the actual use of technology by faculty, it did not negatively impact the faculty’s overall motivation to acquire new skills or apply current instructional technologies.

If barriers can be reduced and professional development for technology integration can follow the tenets of adult learning and self-efficacy, perhaps veteran secondary teachers may acquire the knowledge and skills needed to infuse technology successfully into their instruction.

Paramount to this transition is the understanding offered by Norton and Sprague (2001): “The most significant impact of technology on education will not come from the tools themselves but from the ways in which educators and learners interact with these tools” (p. 268).

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 43

Chapter III

Methodology

A Definition and Rationale for Mixed Methods Research

I used the Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Design which was implemented in two phases (Creswell, 2012, p. 542). The quantitative data was collected first and analyzed; this information assisted in forming the focus for the collection and analysis of the qualitative data

(Terrell, 2012). This design was selected to support a potential low survey response rate and enhance the validity of the findings from the survey portion of the study while providing a degree of triangulation which may not be possible using one method (Bryman, 2006).

Additionally, a mixed methods approach allowed for two sets of data, quantitative and qualitative, which provided more comprehensive and generalizable findings (Tabari & Ivey,

2015). Furthermore, neither method—qualitative or quantitative would have been sufficient in capturing the complexity of veteran secondary teachers’ perceptions and experiences regarding technology infusion (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2002). By utilizing the Explanatory Sequential

Mixed Methods Design, I was able to fully address the following research questions:

Central Question:

How are veteran teachers in secondary education being affected by the pedagogical

movement toward technology-infused classrooms?

Sub questions:

• How do veteran secondary teachers perceive technology use? TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 44

• To what degree does a veteran secondary teacher’s confidence and comfort using

technology impact his or her motivation to employ instructional technology in the

classroom?

• In what ways do veteran secondary teachers integrate technology into their instruction?

• What is the essence of veteran secondary teachers’ experiences with the phenomenon of

technology integration?

The Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Design allowed me to employ my research in two phases; the quantitative-to-qualitative structure provided alternate means of collecting data. In phase one of the study, I collected quantitative data by utilizing the online Teachers’

Use and Perceptions Survey (TUPS) at three high schools and two middle schools in a public school district in Southwest Florida.

In phase two, I used convenience sampling to select 10 teachers from those who participated in the survey and also qualified as veteran secondary teachers with 15 or more years of experience. I collected qualitative data by conducting 40-60 minute face-to-face interviews with 10 secondary veteran teachers who were selected utilizing specific criteria and who also volunteered for this portion of the study. Open-ended interview questions focused on the veteran secondary teachers’ perceptions, confident and comfort levels, and experiences regarding instructional use of technology. The qualitative data provided further explanations of the survey results and elaborated on the teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. The interviews were audio, recorded digitally, and transcribed.

Quantitative Design and Definition

For the quantitative portion of the mixed methods study, a convenience sample of secondary teachers (N=432) from a public school district in Southwest Florida were encouraged TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 45 by their principals to participate in the 200 question Technology Uses & Perceptions Survey

(TUPS) developed by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology at the University of South

Florida. The TUPS is a 15-30 minute online survey currently being used by this school district

(See Appendix A).

Table 1 provides an overview of each school’s demographics. According to Creswell

(2012, p. 146), approximately 350 participants are suggested for a survey, but this sample size can vary due to factors including convenience. Teachers at the five participating schools received an email from the principal inviting them to complete the online survey; the email provided a link to the survey (See Appendix B). The survey results from the participating teachers ( N = 197) were received by the school district’s Director of Instructional Technology who removed any personal identifiers before sending the data to me via email. The data that I received was coded and included survey responses and basic demographic data.

Table 1 Demographics for the Southwest Florida School District and 5 Participating Schools for FY2016

School Teacher Student % % % Pop. Pop. Low LEP Gifted SES District 2,360 45,777 65% 14% 7%

A (HS) 109 1,590 32% 4% 12%

B (HS) 87 1,564 79% 11% 7%

C (HS) 109 1,612 45% 3% 11%

D (MS) 82 1,130 93% 13% 4%

E (MS) 45 680 45% 3% 15%

Note. FY = Fiscal Year; HS = High School; MS = Middle School; Low SES = Low Socioeconomic Status for Students; LEP = Limited English Proficient Students; Gifted = Students Identified as Gifted TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 46

Schools B and D have higher percentages of students designated as Low SES, which indicates low socioeconomic status. Due to the percentage of Low SES students, School B and

School D receive Title 1 funding. This funding may be used to purchase additional resources, including classroom materials, teacher training, and equipment, including technology for student use. This could result in greater access to technology and greater teacher comfort and confidence using technology. Conversely, the percentage of student with Low SES in Schools A, C, and E are below the district’s average; an inference could be made that students at these schools may have a greater ability to purchase their own laptop computers and cell phones, which could allow greater access to technology in the classroom.

Table 2 Computer Inventory for the 5 Participating Schools for FY2016

School Computers Computers Computers Laptops Laptops Teachers & IR/CTE Students Teachers Students Staff Students District 5,678 2,112 16,929 194 5,316

A (HS) 194 143 508 10 317

B (HS) 168 96 553 0 347

C (HS) 175 156 526 6 361

D (MS) 122 32 427 2 111

E (MS) 67 0 322 0 134

Note. FY = Fiscal Year; HS = High School; IR = Instructional Resource; CTE = Career Technology Education.

Since a teacher’s instructional use of computers in the classroom is impacted by multiple factors including perceptions, confidence and comfort, and access, the number of computers available to teachers and students is a variable which should be considered. Table 2 provides a TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 47 listing of the computer inventory for each of the five schools which participated in the study.

School E had the highest ratio of computers to students with 456 computers available for 680 students, providing access for 67% of the students. School D had the lowest ratio of computers to students with 570 computers available for 1130 students, providing access for 50% of the students.

Qualitative Design and Definition

For the qualitative portion of the sequential mixed methods study, I used both purposeful criterion and convenience sampling by contacting veteran secondary teachers who completed the survey and inviting them to participate in an interview. Of that subgroup, 10 veteran secondary teachers volunteered to participate in an interview. To provide an in depth analysis of each veteran secondary teacher's personal experiences, feelings, and attitudes regarding instructional technology infusion, Creswell (2012, p. 77) suggested an exploration of the phenomenon with a heterogeneous group that varies in size from 3 to 15; I selected 10 teachers using the process previously described. I conducted individual face-to-face interviews with the veteran secondary teachers who participated in the survey and volunteered to be interviewed. I used an interview protocol which included employ open-ended questions generated from the survey results and the research questions (See Appendix C). The data was analyzed for significant statements, overarching themes, and description of the essence of the experience, and I bracketed my own experiences (Creswell, 2013).

Challenges Addressed

The use of self-reported data in a survey or interview presents several limitations. The participants may alter or exaggerate responses to create an appearance of what is socially or professionally desirable. Additionally, participants may experience selective memory or TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 48 telescoping, which can cause a displacement of events and impact the frequency in which events are reported; this phenomenon can skew the data results (Welsh & Papke, 2013).

Another limitation may be the middle- and high-income demographics of the public school system in Southwest Florida since this affluence may support greater funding which provides access to technology and professional development opportunities for teachers.

Finally, the quantitative portion of the study may be limited due to satisficing ; this term refers to the tendency for respondents to modify their response efforts and strategy due to fatigue or lack of motivation by answering in patterns, selecting a neutral response, or interpret the items superficially (Krosnick, 1999).

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

The data collection instrument used in the quantitative portion of the study was the TUPS which was developed by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology at the University of

South Florida. The instructional staff members in the five schools were invited to participate by the school's principal, and the online survey was available from April 11 to 15, 2016. This online survey included 200 questions dispersed among the following seven categories: technology access and support, preparation for technology use, perceptions of technology use, confidence and comfort using technology, technology integration, teacher and student use of technology, teacher skills and perceived usefulness of technology. With the exception of eight questions focusing on descriptive information about the survey respondents (gender, ethnicity, degree, teaching experience, subjects taught, grade level, number of students per class, and years using technology for instruction), the remaining questions provided a five-item Likert scale or frequency-of-use options which participants used to respond. For the quantitative survey portion, TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 49

I noted response rates, and I analyzed the data using descriptive analysis methods including percentages, frequency counts, and computation of the mean.

I used convenience sampling to select teachers with a minimum of 15 years of teaching experience to participate in the qualitative portion of the study. The school district provided me with the names, email addresses, and work telephone numbers of the teachers who meet the criteria. I contacted these teachers and invited them to participate in a face-to-face interview with an expected duration of 40 to 60 minutes (See Appendix D). A follow-up email or telephone call was implemented to confirm the teacher’s availability for the interview and arrange a date and time for the meeting. Open-ended questions used in the interview focused on the veteran secondary teachers’ perceptions, confidence and comfort levels, and experiences regarding digital learning (See Appendix C). A consent form was provided which explained the purpose of the study and required the signature of the participant and the researcher (See

Appendix E). Interview participants were granted anonymity. The names of the selected interview participants were not shared with their principals or the school district.

Prior to conducting the interviews, I recorded my own experiences as a veteran secondary teacher who integrated technology into my instruction to bracket my biases. Moustakas (1994) recommended the bracketing process as a way in which the researcher can isolate his or her experiences with the phenomenon being studied so that the researcher can view the data as objectively as possible. Thus, I examined my experience as a veteran secondary teacher who made an effort to learn about instructional technology and incorporate it into my lessons and curriculum, and I set aside my experiences so I could focus on the phenomenon through the eyes of the participants being studied. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 50

During the interview, responses were noted with handwritten descriptions and a digital audio recording was transcribed and then saved as a computer file. During the data analysis process, I employed horizonalization of the data by creating a list of significant statements that do not overlap or repeat (Moustakas, 1994). Following repeated readings, significant statements were grouped into thematic categories and these themes were further analyzed to modify or combine categories, and the data was then used to describe how the veteran secondary teachers experienced the phenomenon of integrating instructional technology into their instruction. Rich descriptions of the experience, setting, and overall context were woven throughout the qualitative section of the study to capture the essence of the experience and depict key points (Creswell,

2013, p. 193-194). Finally, member checking was completed when participants read the written accounts to ensure an accurate representation of the data.

Validity Approaches

According to Creswell (2012), the dependent variable is “an attribute or characteristic that is dependent on or influenced by the independent variable” (p. 115). In the quantitative portion of the study the dependent variable was the veteran secondary teachers’ dispositions toward the infusion of technology in their classrooms, curriculum, and pedagogy. The independent variable was that which exercised influence, and this study the independent variable is the movement toward technology integration in the classrooms, curriculum, and pedagogy of veteran secondary teachers. The control variables in this study were the years of teaching experience and current grade level for each teacher. Since the study focused on veteran, secondary teachers, the control variables were a minimum of 15 years teaching experience and a current grade level between 6 and 12. Since certain attributes or characteristics may stand between the independent and dependent variables, the intervening variables included the veteran TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 51 secondary teachers’ self-efficacy, motivation, previous experience, and level of technology proficiency.

Survey Instrument Design

I used the data collection instrument referred to as the Technology Uses & Perceptions

Survey (TUPS) which was developed by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology at the

University of South Florida. The initial development and validation of the TUPS survey was conducted by Hogarty, Lang, and Kromrey (2003). The survey was developed by focusing on specific domains related to teachers’ integration of technology. Four relevant domains emerged: integration, teacher confidence and comfort when using computers, school and technical support of computer use, and teachers’ attitudes regarding computer use in the classroom.

Depending on the specific category, the survey was composed of a combination of Likert scales and frequency-of-use choices, with the exception of demographic data responses. The survey was reviewed by content experts and pilot tested with a sample of graduate students. As a result, minor revisions were made by the developers which involved item clarity and importance.

Construct validity.

The researchers employed factor analytic and correlational methods to measure specific and relevant constructs related to the validation of instrument scores. After removing the missing data from the initial 2,156 survey responses (a 35% response rate), the researchers examined the psychometric characteristics of the remaining data from 1,850 surveys. A correlational and common factor analysis was used to see if each section of the survey only measured a single dimension. Four sections, which were then divided into factors, were analyzed: Types of Software Used by Teachers, Types of Software Used by Students,

Integration of Computers into the Classroom, and School Support of Computer Use. This TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 52 method is an appropriate way to investigate the reliability of individual factors or subscales based on the number of items that are supposed to measure the construct.

Reliability.

When items are used to form a scale, they need to have internal consistency. Therefore, for each factor within a section, Cronbach’s alpha was used to estimate the reliability and interfactor correlation. Generally, Cronbach’s alpha increases when the correlations between items increase. If the Alpha level is too high, then it may suggest a high level of item redundancy (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). In the examination of the four survey sections, the Cronbach’ alpha ranged from .74 to .92, and this indicates a high internal consistency.

Content validity.

The research team also cited further validity evidence by studying the subscale scores in regard to specific demographic information to determine if the survey data supported the findings of previous studies about computer use by teachers of a specific gender or grade level.

Due to small effect sizes, gender differences were not statistically significant. However, the results from their analysis indicated that elementary school teachers had higher mean responses to every category except the Technical Support subscale.

Overall, the researchers fulfilled their goal of developing an instrument with construct validity, by conducting a factor analysis within each section of the survey and producing composite scores in the acceptable range for reliability.

According to Welsh (J. Welsh, personal communication, February 25, 2016), the Director of the Florida Center for Instructional Technology, the TUPS has been used successfully in over

120 school districts since its development . The TUPS was also used as a framework for Burke’s TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 53

(2014) study which focused on teachers’ self-efficacy with technology integration in the classroom. The TUPS instrument was also analyzed in relation to the research questions to ensure alignment.

Considering the changes which may have occurred in the field of educational technology since the original survey development in 1999 and the updated version in 2010, a content validity update study was conducted utilizing the perspectives of two content experts. While the items were determined to be current based on contemporary norms, a recommendation was made for greater discrimination of technology terminology. The reviewers also cited items which they considered to be duplicates in Category 4 (Confidence and Comfort Using Technology) and

Category 5 (Technology Integration). Due to the timeliness of the feedback, the researcher could not make changes to the items on the TUPS; however, the feedback was referenced when interpreting the data.

Validity for Qualitative Study

Perspectives abound regarding validity and qualitative research. Similar to the view developed by Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba (2011), I perceive validity in terms of ethics and the trustworthiness which is portrayed by the researcher in regard to the relationship with study’s participants and the manner in which discourse occurs and their voices are depicted. Therefore, I supported the validity in the qualitative portion of my study by establishing a relationship of trust and confidentiality with the teachers who volunteered for the interviews. As a veteran secondary teacher myself, I hoped to establish a sense of camaraderie and rapport. Angen (2000) also referenced ethical validation and described validation as “a judgment of the trustworthiness or goodness of a piece of research” (p. 387). TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 54

The use of validity strategies suggested by Creswell (2013) such as triangulation, bracketing researcher bias, and member checking supports ethical considerations by corroborating data, clarifying the researcher’s opinions, and allowing participants to judge the accuracy of preliminary data and themes (pp. 250-252). As such, this research was further validated because it raised new questions, spurred discussion, and has a transformative merit which may influence some form of change or action.

Reliability for Quantitative Study

To ensure reliability, I provided each participant the questions in both verbal and written form. Additionally, I used a digital recording device to document the interview and had the each interview transcribed. I sorted, categorized, and analyzed specific statements and themes which emerged from the data (Creswell, 2013, p. 253).

Potential Ethical Issues

Researcher Bias

As a veteran secondary teacher conducting the research study, I understand the importance of bracketing my bias to reduce the potentially harmful effect of presumptions or prejudice which could influence the research process (Gearing, 2014). Due to the close relationship between myself and the phenomenon under study, I have reflected on my perceptions of technology use, my comfort and confidence levels with technology, and how I have integrated technology in my instruction. I have included a summary of this comprehensive reflection.

Researcher’s perceptions of technology use.

As a veteran secondary English teacher, I perceive technology as a valuable tool in the classroom. Students can use technology for a variety of purposes within a range of cognitive TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 55 levels, from a quick reference or composition tool to complex network of tools which can be utilized together for project-based learning tasks. When integrated purposefully and judiciously, technology can enhance student learning; however, when employed haphazardly or poorly managed, technology may serve as a distraction to learning. I supported the use of students’ personal digital devices in the classroom, and I have implemented learning activities and formative assessments which allowed students to utilize their devices. This step into unknown territory was not without its pitfalls, and I encountered technical glitches, misuse of internet access, and issues related to plagiarism, which forced me to reflect and reevaluate my choice of software, websites, and interactive applications. These stumbling blocks, however, did not dissuade me from using technology nor did they alter my perceptions of the benefits of technology. I remained open to learning about new programs and investigated how various forms of technology could be integrated into my lessons to support student learning.

Researchers’ comfort and confidence using technology.

Due to my willingness to use and experiment with technology in my classroom, I was selected to pilot Blackboard, a new course delivery system for the school district. This opportunity united me with other teachers who were motivated and had a high level of comfort with technology. The support that I received from technology savvy colleagues, district technology support staff, and even students allowed me take greater risks with technology exploration. My motivation to stay current with developments in educational technology and to engage my students also spurred me to try new interactive student programs, like Padlet or

Socrative. Making mistakes—and learning from them—helped me to build greater confidence and increase my trouble-shooting skills. My students seemed to understand that while I may not TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 56 have been 100% confident in my ability to understand all nuances of a specific program, our supportive classroom culture allowed me to take chances with technology.

Researcher’s experience with technology integration.

My high school classroom contained five desktop computers and one teacher station that included a desktop computer, document camera, printer, and computer projector. Students were allowed to bring digital devices to the classroom, but instead of laptops or iPads, most used their cell phones. My classes had access to a computer lab and a laptop cart on an “as needed” basis; however, district and stated computer-based testing schedules had priority. The use of technology tools varied in frequency depending on the unit of study, the specific learning activity, and the level of collaboration. Throughout the school year, students used technology to conduct research, access online resources, and create a variety of presentations which may include video, music, animation, and photography. As an instructor, I employed technology to communicate with parents via email, post assignments and resources to Blackboard, record attendance and grades, comment on student work submitted to a digital dropbox, present content using PowerPoint or Prezi, research curriculum subject matter, maintain anecdotal records, visually model writing and reading strategies, and share student work.

Confidentiality

The potential risks to the participants of this study were minimal and focused primarily on consent, data security and confidentiality. I maintained anonymity of the participants and did not include demographic data that would allow readers to make distinct connections between the participant and a particular school. The participating school district was referenced as a school district in Southwest Florida. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 57

I took proper steps to ensure that information was kept confidential and secure. Both the survey data and the interview data were labeled with a code and the data, signed consent forms, digital audio recordings, and coded data were secured in the FGCU campus office of my dissertation committee chair and will remain there for a minimum of three years following the completion of the study. In terms of electronic files, the key to the code is in a password protected file, and the coded data was maintained on a separate computer server. No information was or will be released unless authorized to do so or unless we are required to do so by law.

When the results of the study are published or presented, no information will be included that would make it possible to identify study participants. The signed consent forms, data, and coded data have been protected and have not disclosed to anyone other than myself and my dissertation committee members. Study records and data were either shredded or physically destroyed and disposed of in a commercially sound manner; electronic records and digital audio files were deleted electronically.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 58

Chapter IV

Results

This chapter is organized into six sections to provide a thorough review of the research results and support the methodology of the Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Design

(Creswell, 2012). The first section provides an overview of the quantitative phase; this is followed by a similar review of the qualitative phase. Next, the description of participants provides demographic information about each of the 97 veteran secondary teachers who participated in the survey and the 10 veteran secondary teachers who volunteered for the interview portion of the study. This chapter concludes with three sections, each focusing on one of the research questions and offers a quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, qualitative summary and summary of themes. Creswell (2012) recommended analyzing the quantitative data first followed by an analysis of the qualitative data; this process assists in the interpretation of the quantitative data. The organization of the chapter is supported by van Manen (1990) who explained that the organizational structure may be organized thematically or by reorganizing the data into larger ideas, such as the research questions.

The research study was conducted in two phases as depicted by the Explanatory

Sequential Mixed Methods Design (Creswell, 2012). The first phase of the study focused on generating quantitative data utilizing the Technology Uses and Perceptions Survey (TUPS) with faculty members from three high schools and two middle schools in a public school district in

Southwest Florida. A sample of 192 secondary teachers were surveyed, and from this original sample, non-veteran teachers (those with 0-14 years of teaching experience) were removed so the remaining sample included 97 veteran secondary teachers, those with a minimum of 15 years experience. The results of the 7 survey categories and individual items were analyzed. These TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 59 categories were: Perceptions of Technology Use, Comfort and Confident Using Technology,

Technology Integration, Teacher Use of Technology, Student Use of Technology, Teacher Skills with Technology, Teacher Perceived Usefulness of Technology. Results from the survey items were used to develop additional questions for the individual interviews which were conducted during the qualitative phase of the study. This process is supported by Creswell (2012) who explained that quantitative results may be used to further develop the qualitative phase of the study. The information derived from the survey results was also incorporated into the interview process when teachers were asked to comment and expand upon their responses to specific categories and items in the survey. Convenience sampling was used to select 10 teachers from those veteran secondary teachers who participated in the survey. Each of the 10 teachers were interviewed face-to-face for a period of 40 to 60 minutes. The results and analyses of both the quantitative and qualitative phases are presented here.

Quantitative Phase

In phase one I focused on the collection of quantitative data utilizing the Technology

Uses and Perceptions Survey (TUPS), a 200-item, online survey. Instructional staff (N=432) from three high schools and two middle schools in a school district in Southwest Florida were invited by their principals to participate in the online survey. From that sample, 192 teachers completed the survey. Following the survey cycle, each of the 97 participating veteran secondary teachers from the five schools were contacted and invited to participate in follow-up interviews.

The quantitative data from the TUPS was collected, and the responses from the sample of

97 veteran secondary teachers were uploaded for frequency analysis in three specific categories: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 60 perceptions of technology use, comfort and confidence using technology, and technology integration. These three categories pertain to the research sub questions:

• How do veteran teachers perceive technology use?

• To what degree does a veteran secondary teacher’s confidence and comfort using

technology impact his or her motivation to employ instructional technology in the

classroom?

• In what ways do veteran secondary teachers integrate technology into their instruction?

Response rates for the three categories which align with the research questions appear in

Tables 4, (p. 62), 6 (p. 73), and 8 (p. 83). These rates indicate that veteran secondary teachers perceive technology use positively and believe that technology enhances their teaching and is beneficial for students. They also feel comfortable using and integrating technology, but would like more technology training. The degree and frequency of technology integration fluctuates between once a month and several times a week depending on the type of student or teacher use.

Qualitative Phase

In phase two of the study, I employed convenience samples to select 10 veteran secondary teachers from those who had participated in the survey and volunteered to be interviewed. For the purposes of this study, a veteran teacher was one who had a minimum of 15 years of teaching experience. Using open-ended questions which had been developed based on the quantitative results and the research questions, I conducted face-to-face interviews with the

10 teachers.

The survey data indicated that veteran secondary teachers’ perceptions of technology use was positive; their responses showed that they believe technology enhances their teaching and supports student learning. Therefore, interview questions were designed to determine what types TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 61 of experiences helped to shape these perceptions. Additionally, the survey data supported that most veteran secondary teachers felt comfortable using and integrating technology. As a result, interview questions were constructed to delve deeper into the level of comfort felt and what influenced this sense of confidence. Teachers also expressed a desire for more training so questions were created to investigate the shortcomings with current trainings and determine what the teachers felt would be more effective forms of professional development. The fluctuation of technology use reported through the survey also impacted the content of the interview questions.

Since technology use may not be an integral component of every effective and engaging lesson, was interested in learning more about the purposes for which technology was integrated and what barriers may have limited access to technology when it was needed to support instruction.

The analysis of each teacher interview and a cross analysis of the 10 cases yielded a variety of themes related to the participants’ experiences with integrating educational technology, perceptions of technology use, confidence and comfort using technology, and integration of technology. Member checking was utilized; participants were provided with the written accounts to ensure an accurate representation of the data.

Description of Participants

A total of 192 secondary teachers from five schools completed the Technology Uses and

Perceptions Survey (TUPS). From this sample, 97 veteran secondary teachers, those who possess 15 years or more of teaching experience, were identified for further analysis. The years of teaching experience for this subgroup ranged from 15 to 40 years. Of these 97 teachers, 57% identified themselves as female and 43% identified themselves as male. Self-reported ethnicity breakdowns indicated that of the 97 veteran secondary teachers, 81.4% white, 8.3% black, 6.2%

Hispanic, and 4.1% other. The ethnic breakdown for the 911 full-time instructional staff TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 62 members in the school district during the same school year was 84% white, 3.7% black, 10%

Hispanic, and 2.2% other. Table 3 provides a demographic overview of the teachers who completed the survey and also volunteered to be interviewed.

Table 3 Demographic Overview of 10 Participants Who Were Interviewed

Participant School Grades Title 1 Yrs. Gender Ethnicity Ed. Level Tch. Dayna C 9-12 No 36 F White Master’s

Debbie B 9-12 Yes 18 F White Master’s

Francine E 6-8 No 36 F White Master’s

Hal C 9-12 No 22 M White Master’s

Hedi C 9-12 No 16 F White Master’s

Mary B 9-12 Yes 26 F White Bachelor’s + 30 hrs.

Michael A 9-12 No 20 M White Bachelor’s

Monica C 9-12 No 40 F White Master’s

Peter E 6-8 No 44 M White Master’s

Wanda E 6-8 No 16 F Black Master’s

Research Question 1: How do veteran teachers perceive technology use?

Quantitative Analysis of Research Question 1.

Displayed in Table 4 is the third category of survey items which assist in identifying teachers’ perceptions of technology. These items also support the research question, “How do veteran teachers perceive technology use?”

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 63

Table 4 Response Rates of 97 Veteran Secondary Teachers for the TUPS Section 3: Perceptions of Technology Use and Mean Calculation using a 5-point Likert Scale

Perceptions of Technology Use Mean SD D N A SA

1. I would like every student in my 4.16 1% 7% 14% 29% 48% class(es) to have access to a digital device.

2. Technology skills are essential to my 4.04 0% 9% 13% 41% 36% students’ success in school.

3. Technology skills are essential to my 4.42 0% 2% 6% 39% 53% students’ success in their future workplace.

4. More training would increase my use 3.90 3% 7% 23% 31% 36% of technology in my teaching.

5. Technology makes my job easier. 3.85 6% 9% 10% 42% 32%

6. Technology changes my roles as a 3.91 2% 7% 15% 48% 27% teacher.

7. I can help others solve technology 3.45 4% 15% 28% 36% 16% problems.

8. Technology enhances my teaching. 4.11 1% 3% 12% 51% 33%

9. Student use of technology enhances 3.74 2% 11% 21% 42% 24% student performance.

10. My use of technology enhances 3.94 1% 7% 19% 43% 30% student performance.

11. Technology should be used in all 3.67 2% 14% 25% 32% 27% courses.

12. I would like my students to be able 3.86 1% 7% 21% 44% 26% to use technology more in their classes.

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neutral, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 64

Based on the responses using a 5-point Likert scale, 77% of veteran secondary teachers selected “agree” or “strongly agree” to Item 2 indicating the belief that technology skills are essential to students’ success at school. Furthermore, 91% of the teachers chose “agree” or

“strongly agree” to Item 3 their agreement that technology skills are essential to students’ success in their future workplace. Eighty-four percent of the teachers “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that technology enhanced their teaching. Additionally, 77% of the teachers also agreed or strongly agreed that every student in their classes should have access to a digital device.

Despite that fact that teachers had positive perceptions of technology use, 67% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that more training would increase their use of technology. Only 52% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that they could help others solve technology problems;

19% of respondents did not believe they could help others solve technology problems.

Qualitative Analysis of Research Question 1.

Dayna, a high school math teacher.

When Dayna started teaching, students did not even have calculators; instead, they used slide rules. She expressed excitement for the manner in which she and students can explore math problems together via technology. She believes students are learning more than they might have learned with the use of technology, and yet Dayna is concerned that students are losing basic skills, like knowing their multiplication tables and other foundational knowledge. She also views technology as the catalyst for rethinking how assessments should be administered and evaluated, and what type of learning should be expected from the students. She described herself as “privileged” to have been able to witness the transformation of education through technology. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 65

Debbie, a high school math teacher.

Debbie expressed her support for technology but also wants her students to understand that “life isn’t a multimedia and social media type thing; it’s part of your life but it’s not all of it.” Initially, she supported the district’s Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) initiative, until a student videotaped her unknowingly and then edited the video to make her “look bad”. As a result, it has taken time for her to trust again, but she did return to using BYOD to enhance instruction with her students. She believes the quality of her presentations has improved, and technology provides an opportunity to show mathematical operations quickly. She also explained how technology has made her job easier because she can differentiate her instruction for individual students which helps them experience success. Technology also allows her to feel more connected to the students; she is able to speak their language even outside of class as they discuss the latest in videogames. Outside of school, Debbie understands that technology can isolate some kids as they retreat to a virtual world, but she also sees how it can provide an escape for some kids who may not have a good home life.

Francine, a middle school exceptional student education teacher.

Francine likes how technology has allowed her to be a facilitator, instead of a lecturer.

She expressed her belief that technology gives students the opportunity to discover ideas and concepts for themselves, and teachers can make modifications based on individual students’ ability levels and learning needs easier with technology. She has also discovered an increase in student engagement when technology is involved. She claimed that even if students have to write, they are more enthusiastic about doing it on a computer. She also admitted to being motivated by technology, just like her students, especially when it is something new and she’s

“itching to try it”. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 66

Hal, a high school social studies teacher.

Hal perceives technology as a way to save time, make his efforts more efficient, and

“maximize output”. He claimed, “I hate grading so I’ve always looked at ways to evaluate and get it [the results] to the kids quick enough.” He also views technology as a way to cater to students’ short attention spans. He described it this way: “It’s almost like we are fishing for attention. You have to teach like you’re a human Twitter feed, which causes much more of a surface area…we teach in 140 characters or less, to keep attention.” Because he views the cell phones as a distraction and a high-tech form of cheating, he does not support the use the cell phones in the classroom, and he provides a basket where these devices should be placed prior to class. According to Hal, teachers do not need technology to teach kids how to read, understand, or remember because “…we [teachers] can do a pretty good job without it [technology]. I think it can be an aid, a supplement, to what we’re doing, but we’re turning it into the entrée.” Despite his concerns about how technology is being used by teachers, Hal admitted to loving technology.

“I’m pro-technology,” he explained, “but we’re getting into a position where it’s a crutch and it’s crippling us. We’re so dependent on it.” He also believes that if we are going to infuse technology correctly, we need to “revolutionize the schoolhouse” by redesigning the layout and infrastructure of classrooms to provide access and support for technology. “If we’re going to be serious about being technology-centered, then make this [the classroom space] the Starship

Enterprise and let’s go.”

Hedi, a high school English teacher.

Hedi admitted that she could function well without computers, but her students would not. She has witnessed the benefits of technology when students are required to write and revise.

She also understands that the use of technology will be vital to students’ future success in their TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 67 jobs and careers. However, she also explained that her high school students are not “computer savvy enough”. She claimed that educators have “put the cart before the horse” in terms of technology by providing “fancy” programs and technology tools when students cannot demonstrate fundamental keyboarding skills. Hedi is also concerned that some students are “flat out addicted” to technology—especially their cell phones, and she believes cell phones should be banned from school. In fact, Hedi claimed that no cell phones will be used in her classroom next year despite the school district’s support of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). In terms of academic benefits, Hedi advocated for her district’s online remedial reading program which she used 90 minutes each week. Her English Language Learner (ELL) students also employed online research tools to complete a compare/contrast paper about what school is like in their native country. She expressed a desire to continue using technology to support basic writing and critical thinking skills because of her concern about their ability to communicate electronically as members of the future workforce. According to Hedi, “They [her students] are going to get into the real world and not be able to put a decent email together.”

Mary, a high school exceptional student education teacher.

Mary believes that if she does not continue to improve her skills and understanding of technology use in education, she will be “left behind”. She views technology as a resource that can make her “day flow easier”. She also thinks that students need to use technology as an integral part of their learning because everything is accessible through technology. She believes that technology helps students learn, speeds up their learning, and provides a great resource.

However, she is concerned that students will “forget” about using books, and she does not want

“books to become obsolete, but that seems to be the way that we’re going.” She likes technology because it decreases her paperwork. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 68

Michael, a high school math and engineering teacher.

Michael believes that computers help gain students’ attention and add a “fun” factor to math. According to Michael, the use of technology has increased student involvement because technology allows his students to participate rather than just passively take notes or complete problems. Additionally, technology adds variety and allows his students to bridge some of the mundane material to applications that are more interesting. However, Michael expressed concern about students’ ability to demonstrate self-control when implementing technology using

BYOD. As a result, he has sought other platforms and prefers using specially selected apps and computers provided by the school. Michael was lured to technology because the use of technology tools and programs make his student more excited about learning math.

Monica, a high school English teacher.

Monica perceives the district’s BYOD initiative as a “double-edge sword” because students become distracted when using the cell phones and many are not disciplined enough to stay on task. Despite this challenge, Monica has allowed students to use their cell phones during class, especially for specific course-related applications and to address queries as they develop in a discussion. She understands the benefits of students being able connect with their world and views technology as having a positive impact on education. She sees benefits of accessibility and ease of access; however, she is not ready to base an entire program on technology or jump wholeheartedly into a digital program. She is comfortable with her style of teaching, and a year before retirement, she does not foresee changing her instructional methods or strategies.

Peter, a middle school science teacher.

Peter perceives technology as a support for student learning, and believes the BYOD initiative has been helpful at times when students need to quickly research a fact or concept; TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 69 however, he has observed his students primarily using their phones for socializing. He understands the benefits of online textbook access, but many of his students in regular science do not have computer access at home, which limits the type of assignments he selects. He believes the science curriculum is “overloaded”, and this has restricted the time he can allot to creative lessons involving computers. He perceives “one-shot” technology training as a “waste of money”, and he credited much of his frustration to a lack of time, lack of financial support for technology equipment, and lack of training for both teachers and students. He explained that he is more concerned about his students’ abilities to read, write, and articulate their thoughts, and he does not see technology as a cure all for this problem.

Wanda, a middle school language arts teacher.

Wanda expressed her belief that this generation of students needs more stimulation, and they need to be able to interact rather than simply sit at desks. She perceives the use of technology as a way to motivate her students because they look forward to their time on the computers. She claimed that if teachers were more open-minded, more advances could be made with technology in the educational setting. She explained, “I don’t think I’d be as good a teacher without the technology.”

Qualitative Summary of Research Question 1.

Veteran secondary teachers reported their perceptions in terms of both benefits and drawbacks. Benefits for students included increased motivation, engagement, stimulation, interaction, variety, and learning. Peter stressed the need for management, and Michael’s explanation about his students’ lack of self-control, especially when using their own personal devices, reinforces the need for management. Because she views her students as “addicted to cell phones”, Hedi believes cell phones should be “banned” from school, and Monica stressed TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 70 concern about technology becoming a distraction. Hal compared technology use to fire: “It can keep you warm or it can burn you.” If “keeping you warm” can be considered a benefit, then six of the teachers interviewed shared positive perceptions of technology when focused on teacher use. Technology has enabled them to support student learning, assume a facilitator role, provide differentiation, increase their efficiency, and decrease paperwork. Three teachers perceived both the benefits and drawbacks of technology to their role as a teacher. While Monica viewed technology as a supplement to instruction and a way that students can access information; she also expressed her feeling that technology must be managed. She explained, “I think it’s

[technology is] a double-edge sword because it is a distraction, and students are not well- disciplined to stay on task.” Debbie agreed that management is key and stressed the need for an environment of trust since digital devices can be used covertly to record classroom discussions.

Hedi also found a drawback in having to manage student cell phone use during instruction. Peter viewed only restrictions and limitations as he shared his perceptions of teacher technology use.

He felt pressure from curricular demands, which in turn, restricted the time he felt he could spend integrating technology; in addition, Peter perceived technology negatively because of the limitations of training and funding for updated equipment. He stated, “The state [Florida

Department of Education] wants everything done on computers, but they’re not willing to give the money to the district to supply more computers. If it wasn’t for our PTO, we wouldn’t have computers.”

Table 5 provides a summation of the 10 veteran secondary teachers’ perceptions which were shared during the face-to-face interviews; they are sub-categorized by perceptions of student technology use and teacher technology use. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 71

Table 5 Categorized Responses to RQ1: How do veteran teachers perceive technology use?

Participant (School, Yrs. Exp.) Perceptions of Technology Use For Students As a Teacher

Dayna Explore math problems Catalyst for improvement (C, 36) Increases student learning Privileged to use Losing basic skills due to tech

Debbie Useful tool Needs to be managed (B, 18) May isolate or provide escape Need to trust students Supports presentation of content Supports differentiation Provides connections with students Able to be facilitator

Francine Used for self-discovery Able to be facilitator (E, 36) Promotes motivation Promotes motivation Increases engagement

Hal Adjusts to attention span Increases efficiency (C, 22) Not needed for fundamental support Supplement to instruction

Hedi Vital for student learning Supports writing skills (C, 16) Addicted to cell phones Used for remediation Need to manage cell phone use

Mary Integral to learning Used as a resource (B, 26) Decreases paperwork

Michael Infuses fun Grab students’ attention (A,20) Supports involvement Ability to excite students Enhances participation Provides variety Need self-control

Monica May be a distraction Needs to be managed (C, 40) Connections to the real world Supplement to instruction Ease of access

Peter Supports student learning Restricted by time (E, 44) Must be managed Restricted by curricular demands Ease of access Limited by lack of funding Not a solution to learning Limited by inadequate training Home access is limited

Wanda Promotes motivation Should be open-minded (E, 16) Provides stimulation Makes me a better teacher Supports interaction TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 72

Research Question 1: Summary of the Themes.

Based on the analysis of both the quantitative and qualitative data for the category of

Perceptions of Technology Use, a dichotomy emerged: veteran secondary teachers perceived the benefits of using technology with their students; however, they are perceived similar challenges when allowing students’ digital devices, including cell phones and laptops, in the classroom. In response to the research question, “How do veteran teachers perceive technology use?”, three clear thematic categories emerged from the qualitative data and provide a greater understanding of the teachers’ responses to the survey: benefits of students’ technology skills, belief that technology use increases achievement, and concern regarding management of student devices.

First, teachers responded positively to students having access to digital devices because teachers believe technology skills are essential to success in school and in the workplace. This supports the theme that teachers’ have a positive perception of technology as it relates to developing skills related to academic and career success. Teachers also believe that student and teacher use of technology increases motivation and engagement, thus enhancing student performance.

Interview participants stressed students’ interest in the novelty of technology integration along with its captivating programs that engage students with the academic content. Conversely, most teachers expressed concern regarding the management of digital devices in their classrooms, due to the distractions which ensue and students’ lack of self-control when using technology. The need to develop ways to manage student use of technology, especially BYOD, was a prominent perception of technology use—or misuse—and surfaced as a significant theme. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 73

Research Question 2: To what degree does a veteran secondary teacher’s confidence and comfort using technology impact his or her motivation to employ instructional technology in the classroom?

Quantitative Analysis of Research Question 2.

In Table 6 the results of veteran secondary teachers who were surveyed on their confidence and comfort levels in regard to their technology use are displayed. These 11 items support the research question, “To what degree does a veteran secondary teacher’s confidence and comfort using technology impact his or her motivation to employ instructional technology in the classroom?”. Based on the participants’ responses, all veteran secondary teachers mean scores were between 3.16 (Neutral) and 4.05 (Agree), which may indicate a degree of uncertainty in their self-assessment. The highest mean of 4.05 was attributed to item 6 “I am comfortable using technology in my teaching”, which indicates that veteran secondary teachers do feel a high degree of confidence or comfort using technology in their classrooms.

In Table 6 the participants’ response rates regarding their confidence and comfort using technology are displayed. A majority of veteran secondary teachers (85%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” to feeling comfortable using technology in their teaching. Sixty-six percent of the respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” to feeling prepared to effectively integrate technology into their teaching and to assess multimedia projects. Even higher, 73% of teachers “agreed” or

“strongly agreed” that they were already using technology effectively in their teaching. Teachers reported feeling less confident about their level of technology training; only 53% “agreed” or

“strongly agreed” to having adequate training in technology use, and a mere 39% “agreed” or

“strongly agreed” that adequate opportunities for training existed at their schools. However,

25% and 24% “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with these same items. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 74

Table 6 Response Rates of 97 Veteran Secondary Teachers for the TUPS Section 4: Confidence and Comfort Using Technology and Mean Calculation using a 5-point Likert Scale

Confidence and Comfort Mean SD D N A SA

1. I have had adequate training in 3.35 3% 22% 22% 44% 9% technology use.

2. I currently have adequate 3.18 2% 22% 37% 35% 4% opportunities for technology training in my school.

3. I am prepared to effectively 3.66 1% 12% 21% 52% 14% integrate technology into my teaching.

4. I am prepared to assess multimedia 3.62 1% 15% 18% 53% 13% projects.

5. I am prepared to guide other 3.16 7% 19% 34% 31% 9% teachers in planning and implementing lessons that incorporate technology.

6. I am comfortable using technology 4.05 1% 6% 8% 56% 29% in my teaching.

7. I am comfortable assigning 3.60 3% 15% 20% 42% 20% multimedia projects to my students.

8. I use technology effectively in my 3.80 2% 7% 19% 53% 20% teaching.

9. I am developing expertise in the 3.58 2% 12% 25% 47% 13% uses of technology in teaching.

10. I am prepared to recognize the 3.97 1% 7% 14% 48% 29% unethical uses of technology.

11. I am comfortable teaching my 3.78 1% 12% 19% 43% 25% students about copyright and fair use guidelines.

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neutral, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 75

Qualitative Analysis of Research Question 2.

Dayna, a high school math teacher.

Dayna explained how she feels comfortable enough with technology to actually display and use her own cell phone under the document camera so her students can see how a particular program or application is being implemented. While Dayna has received some inservice training through one of the technology program vendors, she felt it was ineffective for the company to have a former second grade teacher demonstrating math applications to a high school AP

Statistics teacher. “They [the trainers] should be familiar with the subject area and be able to use math terms,” she stated. Despite ineffective training, Dayna maintains a positive mindset and is willing to experiment with technology. Dayna also feels comfortable learning from her colleagues and is planning on using an application that was successful for another teacher in her department. She has felt comfortable reaching out to colleagues and students when she needed assistance. She admitted that when she was a younger teacher, she did not possess this type of confidence and needed to know the entire process thoroughly before attempting something new with her students. Now she acknowledged that she is comfortable learning from her students and exploring new technology with them. She also explained that she is not afraid to reject or discontinue using specific technology or programs which she believes will not be effective with her curriculum or students.

Debbie, a high school math teacher.

Debbie has taught herself how to use many programs, including Blackboard, a course delivery platform. During staff training sessions, she described herself as “the kid in the back who the instructor wants to absolutely throttle because I’ve already gone through the entire presentation and figured out how to use it [Discovery Ed] on my own.” She explained, “I’m the TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 76 teacher who doesn’t like to be taught. I’m never not comfortable. I just go in there. I learn it.”

She rarely seeks help from other teachers, “If there’s really something I can’t figure out, rather than ask a colleague, I will call tech support.” Instead of being frustrated by her limitations, she get frustrated with the limitations of technology. “I think sometimes I’m actually frustrated that the technology doesn’t do more of what I think it should do.” Following an inservice for

Kahoots and Plickers, both student interactive programs which can be used for pre- and formative assessment, she was inspired to spend $36 of her personal money to purchase the

Plicker cards which is an interactive student response system. She has made these types of technology investments because she believes it is important to provide variation and use many programs so the students don’t “get sick of it [technology]”.

Francine, a middle school exceptional student education teacher.

Francine explained how she is comfortable with using Microsoft PowerPoint, Excel,

Word, and the Internet. In fact, in the previous year, she had been assigned to teach a middle school technology class. She described her ability to teach herself various technology skills by viewing lessons on various YouTube videos. While the district provides some professional development at the beginning of each school year, Francine is comfortable teaching herself what she needs to know about the types of technology and applications that will be useful in the classroom. In fact, she shared plans to develop technology lessons which would immerse students who do not speak any English in more vocabulary. She explained that too often the training provided by the school district covers too many resources and only focuses on surface skills; in fact, many times she has left these training sessions feeling overwhelmed because she had been introduced to myriad programs but did not achieve mastery of even one resource.

Despite her comfort with technology, Francine admitted that the younger teachers are more TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 77 familiar with current technology programs: “I see them [younger teachers] using their phones to advance PowerPoint slides, and I wonder how they do that.”

Hal, a high school social studies teacher.

Hal claimed to be comfortable with using technology in his classroom. In fact, he boasted that most of the time he has been able to figure out new programs without attending training sessions. He is not “afraid” or “intimidated” by online grade books or course delivery systems. He describes himself as an “Excel person” and uses Excel regularly to record and compute grades. He also enjoys using his Smartboard, but to his dismay, it has not been functioning most of the year. In addition to digital access to course materials, Hal provides students with his cell phone number so students can contact him to ask questions or confirm due dates. While proficient with technology himself, Hal views the younger generation of teachers as being more adept at infusing technology because it is “part of their consciousness” and they have a greater comfort level with all forms of technology. He also believes that many veteran teachers, like himself, who have the desire to learn and use technology will continue to evolve, but the teachers who do not embrace technology may not last much longer. He stated, “When you start putting those things [technology applications] in there that make them [veteran teachers] feel uncomfortable, they’ll leave.”

Hedi, a high school English teacher.

Hedi admitted that she had minimal training as a new teacher in the district. She received some assistance from the school’s reading coach and a trainer from one of the district’s software vendors. Hedi explained how she can use PowerPoint and Excel and how she had built her own

WordPress blog. Primarily self-taught, Heidi explained that she can do nearly anything with TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 78 computer technology that she needs or wants to do. She also feels comfortable assisting students with electronic documents and switching keyboards.

Mary, a high school exceptional student education teacher.

Mary explained that she is comfortable with technology. She “plays around” and

“explores” different programs. Although she was not formally trained, she has attended school and district trainings throughout her career, and she did take a technology course as part of her master’s degree. She described her skills as “intermediate” and continues to seek improvement.

She enjoys taking notes on her device, snapping photos of important documents, and being able to track many tasks on one device. While she is “extremely confident” with programs she uses daily, like PowerPoint, but she still sees the need for training and improvement. She views students as a great resource for trouble-shooting and instruction. She also confers with teachers in her department as well as the school’s technology specialist. As a new teacher to the district,

Mary believes that some form of mentoring program so she has a point person to consult with when she needs assistance. She explained that she needs to “go with the flow and keep exploring.”

Michael, a high school math and engineering teacher.

A portion of Michael’s comfort originated from the knowledge that he has ample support at his school site. Over the past two years, he has received funding from the school’s administration for a collection of software and online subscriptions for educational programs, and he has support from the technology staff. Michael described himself a “little bit of a gadget guy” and explained how he enjoys interacting with colleagues during training sessions as they weed through the plethora of technology options and determine which ones will be most effective in the classroom. He admitted to always having a certain level of confidence with TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 79 technology, and claimed he is not afraid to make mistakes in front of his class because he sees these challenges as a way to evolve and become even more proficient.

Monica, a high school English teacher.

Monica, who still owns a basic flip phone, does not use digital applications herself, and admitted that she is not very familiar with Smart phone technology: “The word technology and self-confidence referring to me probably don’t go together.” She relies on her school’s media specialist for technical support and computer access, and she feels comfortable asking this particular colleague and her students for assistance. Monica does not use many of the programs that other teachers use, like Edmodo or Socrative. While she claims that she is not “totally digitally illiterate”, she admits she does not have a comfort zone with technology. Even the district’s inservice trainings have been ineffective for Monica, and she refers to these workshops as a “one-shot deal” because there is a lack of follow-up or support once the session ends, and the instructional strategies used by the trainers are ineffective in reaching her generation. She also described a level of frustration that she experiences during these trainings. When she experiences difficulties with technology, she claims to reach her frustration level quickly and with the limitation of time, she simply moves on to something else that may be more traditional.

Just one year from retirement, Monica candidly admitted that she does not feel motivated to go too far beyond the basics of using the electronic grade book.

Peter, a middle school science teacher.

Peter stressed the need for more training and used the analogy of a mechanic to emphasize his point. “I’m a mechanic. I work on cars. I have some basic knowledge on how to work on engines, but all of a sudden, you bring in an airplane into my garage. I know bits and pieces but all of a sudden, you want me to be a specialist and work on an airplane engine….Well, TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 80 give me the training. Give me the money to go and learn about the aircraft engines so I can do that, all right? But they’re [district administrators] not willing to do that.” Spurred by interest and a desire to infuse technology, Peter independently investigated and found effective science applications—some created by the Center for Disease Control—to use on the iPad, but those same applications could not be used on the desktop computers in his classroom. In addition, the

YouTube videos, which support various curricular topics, cannot be used due to district policy which discourages the use of videos from this website.

Wanda, a middle school language arts teacher.

Wanda described her comfort level with technology in terms of her willingness to experiment and continue to learn from colleagues and students. “I come from the Encyclopedia

Britannica generation, and they’re [the students] are from the Bing and Google generation. We teach each other.” Wanda claimed to be comfortable enough without perfection being her goal.

“I’m not one of those teachers where I have to be one hundred percent proficient in order to use it [technology].”

Qualitative Summary of Research Question 2.

Hedi, Francine, and Debbie explained they are primarily self-taught, which emerged as a theme. Francine shared her strategy for maintaining her technology proficiency: “I’ll look at

YouTube videos. If there’s something I want to know, I’m pretty good at tracking it down and figuring it out, so I’m not afraid of technology.” Seven of the 10 teachers expressed that they were willing to experiment with technology, and this experimentation enabled them to learn about various programs and technology applications which might work in their classrooms.

Monica was the only teacher who described herself as “not digitally literate” and who frequently sought assistance from the media specialist. Wanda, Dayna, and Mary felt comfortable enough TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 81 to seek assistance from colleagues, but others relied on their own knowledge, tech support, experimentation, or exploration. When implementing technology with students in a classroom setting, four teachers expressed a strong comfort level assisting students with technology.

Wanda explained that she does not “strive for perfection” and Michael said that he was willing to experiment with technology when working with his students. Peter was comfortable with specific programs related to writing, research, and science. Monica shared her need to ask students for assistance because she does not have a “comfort zone” with technology. Michael and Dayna are comfortable enough with their subject and technology so they are able to determine which technology programs will work best with their curriculum and students.

Encapsulated in Table 7 are the results of teachers’ self-assessments of their own confidence and comfort levels when using technology; they are sub-categorized by self- assessment and implementation with classes.

Table 7 Categorized Responses to RQ2: To what degree does a veteran secondary teacher’s confidence and comfort using technology impact his or her motivation to employ instructional technology in the classroom?

Participant Confidence and Comfort

(School, Self-Assessment Implementation with Classes Yrs. Exp.)

Dayna Willing to experiment Ability to discern a program’s (C, 36) Learns from students effectiveness Learns from colleagues

Debbie Primarily self-taught Purchases auxiliary tech tools to use (B, 18) Willing to experiment with students Readily asks for tech support Comfortable assisting students

Francine Primarily self-taught Comfortable with Microsoft Office (E, 36) Overwhelmed at training sessions Internet searches

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 82

Participant Confidence and Comfort

(School, Self-Assessment Implementation with Classes Yrs. Exp.)

Hal Willing to explore Does not use student cell phones (C, 22) Willing to experiment Facilitates an online course Views younger teachers as more Comfortable with variety of devices adept with technology including clickers & Smartboard

Hedi Primarily self-taught Comfortable assisting students (C, 16)

Mary Willing to explore Internet searches (B, 26) Willing to experiment Comfortable with PowerPoint, Describes her skills as intermediate attendance program, Discovery Continues to seek improvement Education Would like more training Learns from colleagues Learns from tech specialist

Michael Feels supported by administration Ability to discern a program’s (A,20) Intrigued by technology effectiveness Willing to experiment Willing to experiment with students

Monica Not familiar with Smartphone Asks students for assistance (C, 40) capabilities Does not have a “comfort zone” with Relies on media specialist for technology support Asks students for assistance Reaches frustration level quickly Not digitally literate

Peter Would like more training Comfortable with technology used for (E, 44) Willing to experiment student research/writing Willing to explore Comfortable with Discovery Education program

Wanda Willing to experiment Does not strive for perfection (E, 16) Learns from students Learns from colleagues Comfortable with level of training

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 83

Research Question 2: Summary of the Themes.

The research question, “To what degree does a veteran secondary teacher’s confidence and comfort using technology impact his or her motivation to employ instructional technology in the classroom?” was explored in the qualitative phase of the study. Based on the triangulation of both quantitative and qualitative data, three prominent thematic categories emerged: experimentation, collegial support, and self-reliance. In the survey, veteran secondary teachers revealed high comfort levels for using technology in their teaching. The theme of experimentation was supported by the teachers’ statements about how their proficiency was gained by their willingness to experiment with technology and teach themselves. Their comfort levels allowed for greater experimentation and exploration without the fear of making a mistake or irreparably damaging a computer system. Three teachers sought assistance from colleagues, which supports the theme of collegial support. Participants felt comfortable seeking technology- related assistance from colleagues, including media specialists and teachers who may have exhibited greater proficiency with technology. With the exception of one teacher, the participants were comfortable assisting students with technology. The theme of teachers’ self- reliance developed from explanation of how teacher taught themselves how to use various programs by watching online demonstration videos and searching for how-to instructions through online research.

Research Question 3: In what ways do veteran secondary teachers integrate technology into their instruction?

Quantitative Analysis of Research Question 3.

The results for all veteran secondary teachers in the category of Technology Integration are shown in Table 8; these veteran teachers were surveyed on their degree of technology TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 84 integration in the classroom. The items in this section of the survey support the research question, “In what ways do veteran secondary teachers integrate technology into their instruction?”. Veteran secondary teachers’ responses to the level of frequency ranged from 1

(Not at all) to 6 (Multiple times per day) for each of the 16 items. The teachers’ responses ranged from a mean score of 2.01 (Once per month or less) for Item 6 (As a reward) to 4.44

(Several times per week) for Item 14 (As a communication tool). The results indicate that the highest frequency of technology use by veteran secondary teachers was for communication purposes, which may or may not be related to instructional purposes or student interaction.

Item 14 had the highest response rate; 38% of veteran secondary teachers indicated they used technology multiple times per day as a communication tool. The term communication tool is ambiguous; however, the use of email may have been interpreted by teachers as a technological communication tool. Instructional delivery with the use of technology (Item 13) was reported to occur several times per week (30%), every day (28%), or multiple times per day

(21%). The least frequent occurrence of technology use appeared in Item 6, as a reward; 49% of respondents responded “not at all” for this item. The following items were reported as occurring once a month or less for 30% to 31% of the teachers: small group instruction, cooperative groups, extension activities, remediation, and student projects.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 85

Table 8 Response Rates of 97 Veteran Secondary Teachers for the TUPS Section 5: Frequency of Technology Integration

Frequency of technology integration N OM OW SW ED MD by type

1. Small group instruction 22% 30% 16% 20% 9% 3%

2. Individual instruction 18% 14% 15% 31% 12% 9%

3. Cooperative groups 14% 31% 20% 25% 9% 1%

4. Independent learning 6% 11% 22% 36% 14% 10%

5. As an extension activity 6% 30% 15% 30% 11% 7%

6. As a reward 49% 23% 12% 9% 5% 1%

7. To tutor/for remediation 13% 31% 22% 23% 9% 2%

8. As a research tool for my students 6% 20% 25% 27% 14% 8%

9. As a tool for students to use in 14% 30% 20% 23% 9% 4% planning and managing projects (individual and group)

10. As a productivity tool for my 12% 16% 26% 22% 13% 10% instruction (e.g. to create charts, reports, or other products)

11. As a student presentation tool 13% 41% 12% 18% 8% 7%

12. Student 21% 25% 24% 19% 9% 3% discussion/communication

13. Instructional delivery 3% 11% 7% 30% 28% 21%

14. As a communication tool (e.g. 5% 13% 8% 16% 19% 38% email, electronic discussion)

15. To create online content for my 31% 19% 6% 16% 14% 13% students (web pages, blogs, etc.)

16. To assess student learning 10% 14% 22% 24% 16% 13%

Note . N = Not at all, OM = Once per month or less, OW = Once per week, SW – Several times per week, ED = Every day, MD = Multiple times per day TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 86

Qualitative Analysis of Research Question 3.

Dayna, a high school math teacher.

One issue that Dayna has faced when integrating technology is the limitation of 13

Hewlett Packard laptops which are “slow” and sometimes require up to eight minutes for students to log on. In these instances, Dayna has encouraged students to use their Smart phones instead. Like other secondary teachers, Dayna feels pressured to meet daily learning objectives dictated by the district’s curriculum pacing guide, and she believes this requirement limits the time she can spend with technology-related projects or investigations. Next year, she plans on learning how to use Seesaw, which is an application used to share samples of student work in an effort to provide models of exemplary work and provide support for students. Dayna explained how she incorporates technology when working out a challenging math problem; she may have some students reviewing it for a calculation error by consulting various websites or even uploading a picture of the problem. “In today’s world a student can just take a picture of an algebra problem and send it in to get a solution,” she asserted. When students are faced with challenging problems or questions, she also encourages them to “look it up” and then cautions them to consider the credibility of each Internet source they have utilized.

Debbie, a high school math teacher.

Debbie has a one-to-one student-computer ratio. She has used a variety of programs, including

Blackboard, Desmos, Discovery Education, USA Test Prep, Plicker, Kahoots, and graphing calculators. This year, she used Discovery Ed to preview information and integrate how a specific mathematical concept could be used in the real world. The Blackboard platform allows for online teacher-student interaction and provides students easy access to resources and materials used in class; Debbie is hoping to use the online testing features in the future. For TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 87 geometry, she used web-based programs that link algebra to geometry. When discussing her math instruction, she explained, “Instead of the kids hearing me drone on and on, I can mix it up.

I’ll do a [math] problem one way; I’ll show them a virtual nerd doing it a different way, and then we’ll talk about the efficiency of it.” The presentation tools allow Debbie to show the steps when using the Nspire calculator, especially when graphing a difficult function that utilizes several keystrokes. “I can pause and stop the animation, let the kids catch up, watch it once or twice so the goal is in the mind of where you’re going…” Sometimes she has split her class by ability so she can move quickly through the topic with the advanced students and then spend more instructional time with the lower group; midway she will flip the class so both groups benefit from small group instruction. Access to technology has allowed her to serve as both a teacher and a facilitator. An example of this is when she posts practice problems online and then is able to coach individual students instead of providing direct instruction to the whole class.

Debbie admitted she does not use infuse technology every day; in fact, sometimes she likes using individual dry erase boards to do quick checks for understanding.

Francine, a middle school exceptional student education teacher.

Francine admitted that time can be a barrier when teachers are trying to set up for technology applications. For many teachers, it has been easier to continue with traditional, direct instruction.

Additionally, Francine’s ability to initiate innovative projects that are technology based has been limited by time devoted to preparing students for state and district tests. In addition to remediation and supportive instruction, Francine’s students have used technology to investigate, analyze, and apply higher order thinking skills. As an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher, she supports students who are using various interactive learning programs on the computer, including Achieve 3000, ALEKS, Spelling City, QuizLit, Kahoots, and QuizStart. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 88

Hal, a high school social studies teacher.

Hal has 32 laptops and one desktop in his classroom; however, he explained that at any given time, only 18-20 of the laptops are working. For greater access, many students bring their own laptops to school on a regular basis, and this resolves the access issue, unless the students are completing an activity that requires the use of a secure browser. The government class that Hal teaches is required to be online 51% of the time, which allows students to earn their online course credit. However, because approximately 30% of the laptops are not functioning at any given time, reaching this goal is challenging. All of the lessons for the government course are stored on the district’s course delivery system, and Hal explained that he does not provide any verbal lessons or lectures for this course; instead, he simply monitors the students who are working online. At the beginning of the school year, Hal enjoyed using a set of interactive response clickers which allowed him to conduct pre- and post-assessments daily and download the results quickly. Unfortunately, the time spent updating the users to the clicker program became too laborious as his roster continued to change, so he discontinued using them. He also figured out how to create assessments in the district’s Data Warehouse: “I didn’t get trained on any of that. I just sat down and figured it out.” Hal is willing to experiment with technology and add various programs to his pedagogical toolbox when he perceives the value of doing so.

Hedi, a high school English teacher.

Hedi has six desktops in her classroom and has access to a lab twice a week. However, the computer lab is not available when state and district tests are being administered. She expressed frustration with the limited access during the last three months of school when testing dominated the lab’s schedule. During that time she had access to a laptop cart but described the laptops as

“terrible”, “unreliable”, “slow”, and “an exercise in frustration”. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 89

Mary, a high school exceptional student education teacher.

The students in Mary’s high school science classes have access to technology via a laptop cart,

BYOD applications, and a regular lab schedule one day a week. She wants students to be able to utilize their devices in class but also wants the use to be regulated and balanced. She likes that students have the ability to look up quick facts by utilizing their personal devices. Most of her students’ assignments are technology based. She provides lessons and assignments to students through Discovery Education or CPALMS, an online platform for educators containing resources that support the state standards. They also work collaboratively on research projects, utilizing technology for both composition and research. Additionally, she uses the online textbook to review information with students in small groups.

Michael, a high school math and engineering teacher.

When teaching the engineering courses, Michael incorporated technology three or four times each week. In math, he employed graphic calculators which are connected to a classroom network. He also shared all his presentations electronically so students could review them as needed. Additionally, he used Mobi, which is an electronic tablet that projects the lesson in a similar fashion to writing on a whiteboard; the benefit is that Michael had greater mobility in the classroom and could save lessons to PDFs so students could review them online. The only issue

Michael faced was time—or the lack of it. He cited how planning for various lessons that include technology is difficult and time-consuming.

Monica, a high school English teacher.

Monica has access to a set of laptops and the computer lab when district and state testing does not restrict their use. Her seniors typically bring their own laptops to the college-level dual enrollment course which utilizes Canvas as the course delivery program. Assignments for her TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 90 courses are submitted electronically through a program named TurnItIn which checks for plagiarism. Monica likes the opportunity to conference face-to-face with her students to provide instant feedback during the writing and revision process. Her students regularly refer to the online versions of the New York Times and the student edition of Upfront which focuses on current global events. She supports students’ reading comprehension of complex texts in anthologies with digital audio recordings. She admitted that if she had more time to investigate and experiment with technology, she may be able to enjoy more of the benefits that technology has to offer. According to Monica, the lack of planning time also impacts the opportunity for teachers to collaborate and share ideas regarding technology integration.

Peter, a middle school science teacher.

This was the first year Peter has had access to 24 desktop computers in his classroom, and he has been pleased with the efficient tech specialist who maintains them. Peter claimed the district’s focus on testing has restricted his ability to integrate technology with applications that support hands-on lab experiments. He would like to have more Venter probes, which collaborative student groups use to measure biological vital signs. He claimed the current probes are outdated, difficult to program, and cause batteries to run down frequently. Peter has used the computers in his classroom for review and to implement Discovery Education lessons; however, he is concerned about the poor vocabulary and outdated videos. He also claimed that he did not have enough time to use the class response clickers in class. Instead of integrating technology on a regular basis, Peter displays compliance and claimed to “dabble a little bit there; dabble a little bit here. Keep the people [administrators] off your back.” TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 91

Wanda, a middle school language arts teacher.

Wanda has access to 24 desktop computers along the perimeter of her classroom and claimed that service for these computers has been excellent and always has been executed in a timely manner. She utilizes Achieve 3000, a leveled online reading program, with her intensive reading students and is comfortable with the level of training she received to implement this program.

With support from professional development sessions, she was introduced to online interactive student-response programs like Padlet, Socrative, and Quizlet. She uses PowerPoint daily as an instructional tool and claimed she could not live without it. During the 2015-2016 school year, she had a 90 minute block for each class, so she ensured her students were involved with technology daily, whether it was to practice skills or work on some other activity like their story creation project. Her ELL students benefitted from the use of Google Translate and Reading

Horizons. Wanda explained that “in order to differentiate, I really need the computer; they [the students] need the visual support and the motivation from playing learning games.” She also used Angel, a district program, to maintain a class calendar of lessons and assignments, and provided links so students could access information for homework and ongoing projects.

Qualitative Summary of Research Question 3.

Six of the veteran secondary teachers had daily access to at least 24 computers, two teachers had regular access to a classroom laptop cart, one teacher had regular access to 13 laptop computers, and one teacher had six desktop computers with access to a lab twice a week.

Despite ease of access, of the six teachers with access to at least 24 computers, only one teacher,

Wanda, used the computers daily with her students. Michael used the computers three to four times each week, and Hal’s students in the U. S. Government course were required to be online at least 51% of the time. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 92

Having access did not ensure daily integration of technology; Francine and Peter expressed being limited by curricular demands and time, and Debbie expressed a need to “mix things up” by not using technology daily. When technology integration did occur, teachers were utilizing technology in a variety of ways: research, writing, differentiation, remediation, review, collaboration, and homework access. While some teachers like Dayna and Peter primarily employed technology for traditional research, Wanda, Francine, Debbie infused formative assessments and interaction with interactive student response programs like Socrative, Quizlit,

Kahoots, Padlet, and Plickers. Mary explained that most of her class assignments were technology based, using programs like Discovery Education, writing reports, working with vocabulary words, and completing projects. Conversely, Peter claimed, “There’s not enough time to include computer learning.” This was a sentiment shared by other teachers, including

Dayna, Francine, Michael, and Monica.

In Table 9 is a summation of responses provided by veteran secondary teachers regarding how they integrate technology into their instruction; this category has been subdivided into

“Access” and “Class Use” since limited access could impact the degree to which technology was used with the students.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 93

Table 9 Categorized Responses to Research Question 3: In what ways do veteran secondary teachers integrate technology into their instruction?

Participant Integration

(School, Yrs. Exp.) Access Class Use

Dayna 13 laptop computers Uses for daily work (C, 36) Uses for inquiry and research Limited by time

Debbie 26 laptop computers Not used daily (B, 18) 2 desktop computers Programs: Blackboard, Discovery Education, Kahoots, Plickers, Microsoft Office, USA Test Prep, Desmos, graphing calculators Used to differentiate Facilitator role Supports lessons/homework

Francine 25 desktop computers, in co- Limited by time (E, 36) teaching classes Limited by curriculum 8 desktop computers in her Use for remediation office Use for supportive instruction District and state testing Use for research and investigations interferes with lab access Programs: Achieve 3000, ALEKS, Spelling City, QuizLit, Kahoots, QuizStart

Hal 32 laptops One course is 51% online (C, 22) 1 desktop Limited by nonfunctioning Students bring personal laptops equipment

Hedi 6 desktop computers Current event research 1x/week (C, 16) Access to computer lab Writing and research 2x/week Programs: Achieve 3000, District/state testing interferes PowerPoint, Microsoft Word, with lab access Excel, WordPress, various Internet Laptops are old and unreliable searches

Mary Access to a laptop cart Used for collaboration (B, 26) Access to computer lab 1 time Used for review per week Most assignments are technology- Student devices used in class based TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 94

Participant Integration

(School, Yrs. Exp.) Access Class Use

Michael 30 desktop computers in lab Uses 3 to 4 times per week (A,20) for engineering course Uses graphing calculators, Mobi, Laptop cart for math courses Use to support lessons (shared with another teacher) Use for review Limited by time

Monica Access to a laptop cart Limited by time to plan and (C, 40) Access to a computer lab collaborate

Peter 24 desktop computers Limited by curriculum pacing (E, 44) District and state testing Programs: Discovery Education interferes with lab access and Think Central Needs more district-approved Writing and research program/website options

Wanda 24 desktop computers Uses technology daily (E, 16) Programs: Achieve 3000, Padlet, Socrative, Quizlet, PowerPoint Used to differentiate Access to homework and assignments

Research Question 3: Summary of the Themes.

Based on the triangulation of both quantitative and qualitative data, three prominent thematic categories emerged: access, time, and student collaboration. These categories developed based on the question, “In what ways do veteran secondary teachers integrate technology into their instruction?”. Access, whether referring to classroom computers, laptop carts, or use of a technology lab, was reported as being sufficient. Teachers reported having access to technology when student activities required it. The lack of time, however, was perceived as a barrier to technology integration. Teachers reported a lack of time to train, explore, experiment, and plan for meaningful technology use. The lack of student collaboration TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 95 with technology was a consistent response in both survey and interview data; teachers reported that technology integration was used primarily for instruction as a whole class or for independent work and research. Additionally, a significant discrepancy was revealed among the results.

Communication was cited by survey participants in the quantitative portion of the study as the most frequent use of technology. However, communication was rarely mentioned as a prominent use of technology in qualitative data. In fact, based on participants’ interviews, district-approved instructional programs and student research emerged as significant uses of technology in the classroom.

Summary of Findings

By combining the results of the survey of 97 veteran secondary teachers and the themes which emerged from the interviews with 10 veteran secondary teachers, a clearer picture develops in response to the central question posed in this research study: “How are veteran teachers in secondary education being affected by the pedagogical movement toward technology-infused classrooms?”. Veteran secondary teachers expressed high levels of comfort and confidence with technology and projected a willingness to experiment and teach themselves various programs and skills. They stressed strongly the belief that technology skills are essential to their students’ academic success and beneficial for students in their future vocations.

Additionally, the essence of the veteran secondary teachers’ experiences with the phenomenon of technology integration has become clearer. Through their experiences with technology integration in the classroom, veteran secondary teachers are experiencing the benefits of collegial support and the benefits of computer access with mobile laptop carts, computer labs, classroom computers, and BYOD initiatives. Conversely, the same group of teachers are also experiencing pressure and anxiety due to the limitations of time—time to plan for and incorporate technology TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 96 into what they perceive to be an already overloaded curriculum. They also stressed the need for more effective technology training that includes meaningful, content-related applications and opportunities for follow-up trainings.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 97

Chapter V

Discussion

This chapter is divided into six sections. First, a summary of the research problem and study design will be provided. This review is followed by a discussion the findings as related to each of the research questions. Next, I explore the implication of the findings and make recommendations based on the findings. The fourth section addresses the potential limitations of the study. Based on an analysis of the literature review and findings, I present recommendations for further study. Finally, I will provide conclusions based on the research study.

Summary of Research Problem and Study Design

The overarching question of this research study was “How are veteran teachers in secondary education being affected by the pedagogical movement toward technology-infused classrooms?” Based on Creswell’s (2012) description of Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods

Design, I conducted the study in two phases. The quantitative data from 192 secondary teachers was first collected, and 97 veteran teachers’ responses were analyzed; this information assisted in forming the focus for the collection and analysis of the qualitative data (Terrell, 2012). As a result of the analysis, interview questions were developed and refined to delve deeper into areas in which veteran secondary teachers responded either uniformly or divergently. The data collection instrument used in the quantitative portion of the study was the Technology Uses and

Perceptions Survey (TUPS) which was developed by the Florida Center for Instructional

Technology at the University of South Florida. This online survey included 200 questions dispersed among the following seven categories: technology access and support, preparation for technology use, perceptions of technology use, confidence and comfort using technology, technology integration, teacher and student use of technology, teacher skills and perceived TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 98 usefulness of technology. The instructional staff members from the five schools in a Southwest

Florida school district were invited to participate in the survey by the school's principal.

Following the survey, convenience sampling was employed to select 10 veteran secondary teachers with a minimum of 15 years of teaching experience to participate in the qualitative portion of the study which was comprised of a face-to-face interview lasting approximately 40 to

60 minutes. Open-ended questions were used in the interview which focused on the veteran secondary teachers’ perceptions, confidence and comfort levels, and experiences regarding digital learning.

During the data analysis process, horizonalization of the data allowed me to create a list of significant statements that did not overlap or repeat (Moustakas, 1994). Following repeated readings, significant statements were grouped into thematic categories; these themes were further analyzed to modify or combine categories, and the data was then used to describe how the veteran secondary teachers experienced the phenomenon of integrating instructional technology into their instruction. Rich descriptions of the experience, setting, and overall context were woven throughout the qualitative section of the study to capture the essence of the experience and depict key points (Creswell, 2013, p. 193-194). Finally, member checking was completed when participants read the written accounts to ensure an accurate representation of the data.

Research questions and themes

Interviews with 10 veteran secondary teachers and an analysis of both the quantitative and qualitative data encapsulated through the coding process identified themes within each of the three research questions and survey categories. The first research question focused on the teachers’ perceptions, “How do veteran teachers perceive technology use?”. Recurring statements regarding the teachers’ beliefs and attitudes developed into three themes. Teachers TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 99 expressed their perceptions that the use technology in the classroom increases students’ academic achievement and is a vital component of students’ future success in the workplace. While their overall perceptions of teacher and student technology use was positive, the veteran secondary teachers shared concerns about managing students’ on task behavior when each student is on his or her personal or school-provided digital device.

Other prominent themes which emerged from the second research question, “To what degree does a veteran secondary teacher’s confidence and comfort using technology impact his or her motivation to employ instructional technology in the classroom?” Three thematic categories of experimentation, collegial support, and self-reliance emerged from triangulation of the data in this category. Teachers explained how they are willing to experiment with various technology programs and devices, and they admitted that most of their skills were a result of teaching themselves via trial-and-error and online assistance, including YouTube videos.

Teachers also felt comfortable seeking assistance from their colleagues.

The third research question, “In what ways do veteran secondary teachers integrate technology into their instruction?” brought forth thematic categories including, access to technology, issues regarding the time needed to prepare to technology use, and the lack of student collaboration. A majority of teachers reported having adequate access to technology; many teachers had access to labs, laptop carts, and one teacher had 31 classroom computers available for student use. Conversely, the concept of time was stressed in terms of being inadequate; teachers reported not having enough time to learn about technology and plan for lessons which integrate technology in meaningful ways. While veteran secondary teachers employed technology as an instructional tool and allowed students to use technology for TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 100 independent work, teachers did not integrate technology to allow for and encourage student collaboration.

Findings

Research Question 1

Teachers’ beliefs are one of the best predictors of how they will approach technology integration in their classrooms (Hsu, 2016; Pajares, 1992; Pierson, 2001). Therefore, the first research question, “How do veteran teachers perceive technology use?” focuses on the beliefs of veteran secondary teachers. Their responses to this question provide the foundation for the manner in which technology is integrated and the degree to which technology is used in terms of frequency and levels of integration. Of the veteran secondary teachers who were surveyed, 84% agreed or strongly agreed that technology enhanced their teaching, and 73% believed that technology enhanced their teaching. These data indicate that veteran secondary teachers favorably perceive the benefits of technology in terms of supporting their classroom instruction.

Additionally, 77% of veteran teachers believed that every student in their class should have access to a digital device, and 66% felt strongly that student use of technology enhanced the student’s performance. Therefore, the technology is not only perceived as benefitting the teacher in terms of effective pedagogy, but also technology is perceived as benefitting students academically. This favorable perception of instructional technology use seems to contradict the claim of Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) who stated that because veteran teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are well established, their beliefs may be more difficult to change. Since the veteran teachers’ perceived self-efficacy was focused on their belief that student learning could be achieved with the use of technology, they were more motivated to learn about various technology tools and engage activities which employ them. This form of response is supported TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 101 by Bandura’s (1977) explanation of self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in his or her ability to perform a task successfully. When teachers believe they can effectively integrate technology in a manner which supports student success, they are more likely to find ways to incorporate technology into their instruction.

Research Question 2

Unlike younger, less experienced preservice teachers, veteran teachers may not be technology experts since they did not grow up with technology as part of their education, especially in terms of technology integration; thus, veteran teachers may be referred to as digital immigrants in contrast to digital natives —those preservice teachers who have experienced technology since childhood (Prensky, 2001). This generational issue may be compounded by the fact that many veteran secondary teachers are more focused on domain-specific content and curriculum; they are experts and are highly confident in their subject area, but they may experience lower levels of confidence and self-efficacy with educational and online technology

(Lee & Tsai, 2010). This lack of self-efficacy may impact veteran secondary teachers’ levels of comfort and confidence when using technology, and may provide a basis for the second research question, “To what degree does a veteran secondary teacher’s confidence and comfort using technology impact his or her motivation to employ instructional technology in the classroom?”.

Despite the generational divide, 85% of the veteran secondary teachers claimed they were comfortable using technology in their teaching, and 73% believed they used technology effectively in their teaching. Regardless of this high level of comfort, only 53% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that their training in technology use was adequate, and even fewer,

39% felt they had adequate opportunities for training at their school site. Additionally, only 40% TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 102 felt comfortable and confident enough in their own technology use to guide other teachers in planning or implementing lessons that included technology.

The disparity among those teachers who are comfortable using technology as part of their teaching and those who believed they could assist others had a vast difference of 45%. This may be one reason why 60% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that they were still developing expertise in the uses of technology in teaching. While many veteran secondary teachers may have reached high levels of comfort and confidence with their current skills, specific content, and current students, that same comfort and confidence may not extent beyond their limited application in their own unique classrooms.

Research Question 3

In addition to perceptions and comfort/confidence levels, veteran secondary teachers also indicated on the TUPS the degree to which they integrated technology for specific purposes. The third research question, “In what ways do veteran secondary teachers integrate technology into their instruction?” delves into the varied ways in which veteran secondary teachers use technology in the classroom. Frequency of use ranged from “Never” to “Multiple Times Per

Day”. The purposes for using technology which were reported as being used most frequently

(several times a week, every day, or multiple times per day) were instructional delivery (79%) , as a communication tool (73%), independent learning (60%), to access student learning (53%), and individual instruction (52%). These activities reflect uses that are administrative, teacher- led, or individual-based. The item used less frequently (several times a week, every day, or multiple times per day) was student-centered activities using technology (36%). These student- centered activities included cooperative groups, extension activities, student presentations, student discussions/communication, and student use. The difference in frequency of technology TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 103 integration between teacher-led (79%) and student-centered activities (36%) indicates that for veteran secondary teachers, the use of technology is more teacher-focused than student-focused.

Despite access to computers, teachers did not frequently engage students in collaborative work or learning activities that involved hands-on use of technology. The results may dispute the research conducted by Keppler et al., (2014) as they reported that many veteran teachers have been hesitant to employ technology and accompanying pedagogical strategies as the norm for their instructional practice or support for student learning. Based on the results of this study, nearly 80% of veteran secondary teachers employed technology for instructional delivery. On the surface, this may appear to be positive; however, according to Cennamo et al., (2010), teacher-directed use of technology is described as a beginning phase on the continuum of technology integration. Therefore, the teacher-focused technology integration may indicate a lack of training, inadequate time to prepare for technology integration, or misunderstandings regarding best practices.

In both the quantitative and qualitative portions of the study, veteran secondary teachers focused on the lack of time to use technology. The demands and pace of the curriculum along with other accountability demands, serve as a barrier to the use of technology in the classroom, which is similar to the findings of Cox (2013) who described contextual factors such as the school’s culture, curriculum, and funding can impact teachers’ experiences with technology integration. Veteran secondary teachers in this study referred to time limitations as being a significant barrier to their use of technology in units of study. Additionally, several teachers stated that the student computers were extremely slow in terms of start-up and processing times, had outdated programs, or were malfunctioning. Technical glitches and antiquated equipment have been determined as possible barriers to technological integration (Zhao & Frank, 2003). TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 104

Veteran secondary teachers in this study explained that when technology tools did not perform to expectations, they became more reluctant to incorporate technology into their instruction.

Implication of Findings

The veteran secondary teachers who participated in the TUPS may be positioned at various points along the continuum of four development stages: beginning, developing, proficient, and transformative (Cennamo et al., 2010). These stages are characterized by the variance of teacher-directed activities and control of how technology is used to create products or conduct research to student-directed learning which allows for self-selected technology, collaboration, and involvement with real world problems. Based on the findings of this study, most veteran secondary teachers could be categorized as performing in the developing stage of technology integration since the teachers were allowing for some student choice, but the use of technology was still primarily teacher-directed with resources and activities purposefully selected by the teacher.

The observation made by Norton and Sprague (2001) nearly 15 years ago still applies to technology infusion in classrooms today; how teachers and students interact with technology tools is more important to learning than the tools themselves. Maddux and Johnson (2006) and

Fullan (2013) explained how lower-level uses of technology, including the use of PowerPoint presentations, Internet searches, and drill-style applications, continue to dominate classroom applications. These lower-level uses are supported in my study and were indicated by veteran secondary teachers in this study who reported communication and instructional delivery as their most frequent use of technology in the classroom. Additionally, in the TUPS nearly one-third of veteran secondary teachers claimed to integrate technology once a month or less for small group TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 105 instruction, cooperative learning, extension activities, and student projects; many of these activities would involve greater rigor and cognitively complexity.

Two of the veteran secondary teachers, one with 40 years of experience and the other with 16 years of teaching experience, emerged at opposite ends of the TUPS continuum based on the three categories of Perceptions, Confidence and Comfort, and Technology Integration.

Monica, a 40-year veteran, represented the experienced teacher who has learned district’s technology basics and believes it is sufficient for the time she has remaining in her career; whereas, Wanda, through her reported pedagogy and statements, supported her belief that technology makes her a better teacher. Monica, who was still using a flip phone, believes that technology training is “never going to reach my generation.” While she understands how various programs can save her time, she also admitted having feelings of discomfort with technology programs and she lacks the time to investigate them. Conversely, Wanda who is in her sixteenth year of her teaching career, makes it “a point to get the kids on the technology every day.” While she does not pretend to be an expert, she is comfortable enough to try new programs and remains open to suggestions from her students. Wanda believes that if veteran teachers were more open-minded, this specific group of technology immigrants could be more proficient with technology knowledge and use.

This dichotomy between the 16-year and 40-year veteran secondary teachers reveals a significant disparity based on their years of teaching experience. Inferences and recommendations based on the implications of this study attempt to avoid either extreme.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 106

Recommendations.

The quantitative and qualitative results based on responses from veteran secondary teachers indicate that student access to computers is sufficient. A combination of classroom computers, laptop carts, and technology labs provide teachers with the hardware and software to integrate technology. While veteran secondary teachers perceive the benefits of developing students’ technology skills and believe the use of technology increases student achievement, they are confronted by obstacles with may limit technology integration.

Cuban (2001) confirmed that two major deterrents to technology use by teachers were lack of time and inadequate training, and this is supported by my study. Veteran secondary teachers expressed a need for comprehensive technology training, time to explore technology applications, and time to plan for technology integration as a pedagogical strategy. School leaders must address the need for professional development in the area of instructional technology and ensure that training programs are comprehensive and allow for continued support to build capacity as well as greater comfort and confidence among secondary veteran teachers

(Lai, 2008; Law 2008). Based on the concerns shared by veteran secondary teachers, the management of students and their personal digital devices must also be addressed through training which addresses this specific aspect of classroom management.

Additionally, the facilitators of these training sessions must understand and apply principles of andragogy, the art and science of helping adults learn to ensure that they are learner-focused, applicable, draw from learners’ previous experiences (Knowles, 1970). In order to be effective, training related to instructional technology should be grounded in content-based, technology examples (Hughes, 2005). These statements and suggestions regarding teacher training are supported by veteran secondary teachers who participated in the TUPS and interview TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 107 sessions who reported the need for ongoing training targeted toward their specific content areas and curricular needs.

Teacher mentoring should also be used to support technology training efforts with veteran teachers (Kopcha, 2010). Veteran secondary teachers in this study explained how self- reliance and support from colleagues, media specialists, and online tutorials helped them gain proficiency and address questions regarding technology. These statements concur with the findings of Hardcastle (2008) in which peers were cited as a primary source of technology information and Glickman, et al. (2010) who found that teachers who are in need of assistance typically turn to colleagues first for advice. Teachers need continual support from a knowledgeable individual who can enhance their skills and foster efficacy as they strive to integrate technology into their educational practice (Plair, 2010).

While several teachers in this study were motivated to explore technology and expressed a willingness to experiment with various technology programs, teachers continue to look to their school leaders and administrators to employ a supportive learning network (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-

Leftwich, 2010). A recommendation of this study is that ample support be provided, as well as time for teachers not only to learn how to use technology but also to plan and collaborate regarding its use in the classroom. This recommendation corresponds with the research of

Sheingold and Hadley (1990) who determined that several years of practice and ongoing support are needed to master computer-based teaching approaches. Since most veteran secondary teachers involved in this study used technology as a teacher-led instructional tool, ongoing professional development should also address pedagogy which is more student-directed and encourages collaboration. This type of technology integration is supported by Cennamo, et al. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 108

(2010) who believe student-directed learning promotes rigor, deeper thinking, and real world applications.

Limitations of the study.

External validity, or generalizability, of the study should be considered, although the sample of 97 veteran secondary teachers from a public school district in Southwest Florida may not be representative of all teachers in Florida school districts. Another limitation may be the middle- and high-income demographics of the public school system in Southwest Florida since this affluence may support greater funding which provides greater access to technology and professional development opportunities for teachers.

The use of self-reported data in a survey or interview may also present several limitations. The participants may have altered or exaggerated responses to create an appearance of what is socially or professionally desirable. Additionally, participants may have experienced selective memory or telescoping, which can cause a displacement of events and impact the frequency in which events are reported; this phenomenon can skew the data results (Welsh &

Papke, 2013). Furthermore, the quantitative portion of the study may be limited due to satisficing ; respondents may have modified their response efforts due to fatigue or lack of motivation (Krosnick, 1999). Finally, the 5-point Likert scale on the TUPS included the choice

“neutral” which allowed participants to neither “agree” not “disagree” with an item. The selection of this option impacted the ability to make accurate interpretations of teachers’ perceptions and comfort/confidence levels.

Recommendations for Further Study.

Due to the limitations of the study and the range in years of experience of the veteran secondary teachers, I would make the following recommendations for further study: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 109

1. Adjust the range of experience into smaller increments of years since veteran

teachers of 15 years when compared to a veteran teachers of 35 years, may have

vast differences in their perceptions of technology use, comfort/confidence levels

with technology use, and forms of technology integration.

2. Conduct a similar study in schools within a public school district that contains

greater diversity, lower socioeconomic status, or a rural/urban setting to

investigate other factors which may influence veteran secondary teachers’

perceptions of technology use, comfort/confidence levels with technology use,

and forms of technology integration.

3. Analyze veteran secondary teacher groups in terms of subject area or grade level

to determine similarities or differences in their perceptions of technology use,

comfort/confidence levels with technology use, and forms of technology

integration.

4. Direct a similar study using classroom observations in addition to or in lieu of

self-reported data to achieve an authentic view of how veteran secondary teachers

integrate technology into their instruction.

5. Utilize recommendations determined by the content validity update study to

provide greater discrimination of technology terminology and revised or remove

duplicate items on the TUPS.

6. Analyze the TUPS survey data to compare teachers with various years of

experience. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 110

Conclusions

The veteran secondary teacher is a valuable asset in the field of education, yet has not been the main focus of predominant research studies in regard to beliefs, attitudes, and classroom practices regarding instructional technology infusion. Fullan (2013) explained how technology is merely a tool which must be engaged selectively and purposefully by teachers who understand pedagogy. Veteran secondary teachers possess content and pedagogical knowledge; however, not all veteran secondary teachers have developed sound pedagogy and knowledge about effective technology integration. Providing computer access for each student through one-to-one initiatives will not equate to meaningful or successful technology use. However, the balanced combination of content knowledge, pedagogical ability, and meaningful technology use by skillful teachers can positively influence student learning (Fullan, 2013; Hughes, 20015). School leaders must take appropriate action to build capacity, support knowledge, and enrich the skills of veteran secondary teachers, many of whom are motivated and eager to learn how they can positively impact students’ learning and achievement in the 21 st century by infusing technology into their instruction.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 111

References

Agodini, R., Dynarski, M., Honey, M., & Levin, D. (2003). The effectiveness of

educational technology: Issues and recommendations for the national study. Princeton,

NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (2008). Statistical options for the social sciences, (4 th edition). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the

conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advanced in technology

and pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education, 52 , 154-168.

Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and

opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research , 10 , 378-395.

Bambara, L. M. (2002). Are you a behaviorist or a bonder? Smashing artificial dichotomies and

entering into a dialogue of shared knowledge and multiple perspectives. Journal of Positive

Behavior Interventions, 4 (1), 17-21.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist , 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self –efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest

through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 , 586-

598.

Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Hames, C. & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on

technology in K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the National TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 112

Technology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 489-

507.

Bates, A. W. (2001). Beyond button-pushing: Using technology to improve learning. In Epper,

R., M. & Bates, A. W. (Eds.), Teaching faculty how to use technology: Best practices

from leading institutions (pp. 141-152). Westport, CT: Oryx Press.

Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. N. Mangieri &

C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse

perspectives (pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Pubs.

Bork, A. (1985). Personal computers in education . New York: Harper & Row.

Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on

technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and

practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 39 (1), 22-43.

Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?

Qualitative Research , 6(1), 97-113.

Burke, L. F. (2014). Teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in integrating technology into

pedagogical practices and barriers to technology integration. (Doctoral dissertation,

Johnson & Wales University).

Burke, W. W. & Litwin, G. (1989). A causal model of organizational performance. In: J. W.

Pfeiffer, (Ed), The1989 Annual: Developing Human Resources . San Diego, CA:

University Associates.

Carpenter, D. R. (2007). Phenomenology as method. In H. J. Streubert & D. R. Carpenter (Eds.),

Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative (pp. 75-99).

Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 113

Cennamo, K. S., Ross, J. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Technology integration for meaningful

classroom use: A standards-based approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage

Learning.

Cho, J. Y. & Lee, E. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative

analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19 (32), 1-20.

Cottle, A. E. (2010). Infusing technology: A study of the influence of professional development

on how teachers use technology . (Doctoral dissertation, Marshall University).

Courts, B. & Tucker, J. (2012). Using technology to create a dynamic classroom experience.

Journal of College Teaching & Learning , 9(2), 121-128.

Cox, J. (2013). Tenured teachers and technology integration in the classroom. Contemporary

Issues in Education Research , 6(2), 209-217.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:

First Harvard University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state

policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives , 1(8).

Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote

teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34 (3), 3-14. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 114

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., & Cameron, J. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic

motivation in education: Reconsidered once again: Comment/Reply. Review of

Educational Research, 71 (1), 1-51.

Dreyfyus, H. L. & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine . New York: Free Press.

Duhaney, D. C. (2001). Teacher education: Preparing teachers to integrate technology.

International Journal of Instructional Media, 28 (1), 23-27.

Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C. & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and

practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48 (8), 45-52.

Ertmer, P. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2009). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,

beliefs, and culture intersect. American Educational Research Association, San Diego,

CA. Retrieved January 15, 2016 from

https://collaborate.education.purdue.edu/edci/ertmer/Docs/Conferences/AERA09_Ertmer

_Leftwich.pdf

Ertmer, P. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,

confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 42 (3), 255-284.

Fisher, T. (2006). Educational transformation: It is like “beauty” in the eye of the beholder, or

will we know it when we see it? Education and Information Technologies, 11 (3), 293-

303.

Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs .

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change . San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 115

Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge .

Toronto, Canada: Pearson Canada, Inc.

Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change . New York:

Teachers College Press.

Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school . New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Glazer, E. (2004). From a caterpillar to a butterfly: The growth of a teacher in developing

technology-enhanced mathematical investigations. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 12 (1), 115-138.

Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America’s schools: A guide for school-based education .

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2010). SuperVision and instructional

leadership: A developmental approach. (8 th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in

the classroom. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal , 50 (2), 63-75.

Gossen, D. & Anderson, J. (1995). Creating the conditions: Leadership for quality schools .

Chapel Hill, NC: New View Publications.

Gredler, M. E. (2009). Learning and instruction theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Grant, M. M., Tamim, S., Brown, D. B., Sweeney, J. P., & Ferguson, F. K. (2015). Teaching

and learning with mobile computing devices: Case study in K-12 classrooms.

TechTrends, 59 (4), 32-45. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 116

Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S.

public schools: 2009 . (NCES 2010-040). National Center for Education Statistics.

Institute of Education Sciences. U. S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.

Guskey, T. R. (1995). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In

T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New

paradigms and practices (pp. 114-131). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010) Multivariate data analysis: A

global perspective (7 th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hardcastle, A. (2008). Teaching and Learning Technology Use at community and technical

colleges in Washington State: Faculty survey. Final Report. Washington State

University Extension Energy Program. Olympia, Washington.

Hazzan, O. (2003). Prospective high school mathematics teachers’ attitudes toward integrating

computers in their future teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 35 ,

213-246.

Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into

subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum

Studies , 37 (2), 155-192.

Hemans, R., Tondeur, J. van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school

teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers . Computers and

Education, 51 (4), 1499-1509.

Hertzler, K. S. (2010). High school teachers’ perceptions of the integration of instructional

technology in the classroom . (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 117

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning:

Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research . Educational

Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.

Hogarty, K. Y., Lang, T. R., & Kromrey, J. D. (2003). Another look at technology use in

classrooms: The development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’

perceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63 (1), 139-162.

Hsu, P. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices, and barriers about technology integration:

A case study. TechTrends (60), 30-40. doi: 10.1007/s11528-015-0014-3

Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming

technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13 (2),

277-302.

Hutchison, K. R. (2001) Developing faculty use of technology: The Bellevue Community

College experience. In Epper, R., M. & Bates, A. W. (Eds.), Teaching faculty how to use

technology: Best practices from leading institutions (pp. 93-114). Westport, CT: Oryx

Press.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Use of NETS by state. Retrieved

January 8, 2016, from http://www.iste.org/handlers/PDFGalleryImage.ashx?id=3.

Isabelle, C. & Lapointe, C. (2003). Start at the top: Successfully integrating information and

communication technologies in schools by training principals. Alberta Journal of

Educational Research , 49 (2), 123.

Joyce Hwee, L. K., Chai, C. S., & Ching-Chung, T. (2014). Demographic factors, TPACK

constructs, and teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Journal of

Educational Technology & Society, 17 (1), 185-196. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 118

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist ,

27 (1), 65-90.

Kanaya, T., Light, D., & Culp, K. M. (2005). Factors influencing outcomes from a technology-

focused professional development program. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 37 (2), 313-329.

Kiger, D. & Herro, D. (2015). Bring your own device: Parental guidance (PG) suggested. Tech

Trends , 59 (5), 51-61.

Keppler, K., Weiler, S.C., & Maas, D. (2014). Focused ubiquity: A purposeful approach to

providing students with laptops. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (4), 278-288.

Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education . New York: Association Press.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive

classic in adult education and human resource development ( 6th ed .). Burlington, MA:

Elsevier.

Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of

Computing in Teacher Education, 21 (3), 94-102.

Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and

communities of practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2),

175-190.

Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology , 50 , 537-567.

Lai, K. W. (2008). ICT supporting the learning process: The premise, reality, and promise. In J.

Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary

and secondary education (pp. 215-230). New York: Springer. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 119

Law, N. (2008). Teacher learning beyond knowledge for pedagogical innovations with ICT. In

J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in

primary and secondary education (pp. 425-434). New York: Springer.

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology

into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and

answers. Review of Educational Research, 77 (4), 575-614.

Lee, M. & Tsai, C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and technological

pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web.

Instructional Science, 38 (1), 1-21. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4.

Liu, S., Hsien-Chang Tsai, & Yu-Ting, H. (2015). Collaborative professional development of

mentor teachers and pre-service teachers in relation to technology integration. Journal of

Educational Technology & Society, 18 (3), 161-172.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E.G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,

and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of

Qualitative Research (4 th ed., pp. 97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2 nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2006). Type II application of information technology in

education: The next revolution. Computers in the Schools. 23 (1/2), 1-5.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework

for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054.

Moeller, B. & Reitzes, T. (2011). Integrating technology with student-centered learning .

Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 120

Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods .

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating

variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited

integration. Computers and Education, 51 (4), 1523-1537.

Norton, P. & Sprague, D. (2001). Technology for teaching . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

National Center for Education Statistics. Fast facts. Retrieved January 16, 2016 from

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=46

Oliver, K., & Townsend, L. (2013). Preparing teachers for technology integration: Programs,

competencies, and factors from the literature. National Teacher Education Journal , 6(3) 41-

60.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2007). Expert technology-using teachers: Visions, strategies, and

development (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

Global. (Order No. 3287284).

Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy

construct. Review of Educational Research , 62(3), 307-332.

Picciano, A. G. (2006). Online learning: Implications for higher education pedagogy and

policy. Journal of Thought , 41(1), 75-94.

Pierson, M. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise.

Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33 (4), 413-430. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 121

Plair, S. K. (2010). On becoming technology fluent: Digital classrooms and middle aged

teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

(Order No. 3435097).

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1-6.

Project Tomorrow. (2008). 21 st century learners deserve a 21 st century education. Selected

national findings of the speak up 2007 survey . Retrieved January 15, 2016, from

http://www.tomorrow.org/docs/national%20findings%20speak%20up%202007.pdf

Project Tomorrow. (2014). Teachers’ readiness to adopt and adapt content—TRACC. Retrieved

January 15, 2016, from http://www.tomorrow.org/publications/TRAAC/index.html

Ramsay, C. M., Aman, D. D., & Pursel, B. K. (2014). Blogging pragmatics and pedagogy: An

adventure in faculty development. Education and Information Technologies, 19 (2), 425-440.

Rifkind, D. S. (2011). A case study exploration of secondary school teachers’ technology

integration (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

(Order No. 3480216).

Ritt, H. (2011). Technology leadership and coaching: A support system for teachers integrating

technology with classroom practice (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia).

Roblyer, M. D. & Doering, A. H. (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching , (5 th

ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations . (5 th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Sandholtz, J. H., & Ringstaff, C. (1996). Teacher change in technology-rich classrooms. In C.

Fisher, D. C. Dwyer, & K. Yocam (Eds.), Education and technology: Reflections on

computing in classrooms (pp. 281-299). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 122

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, D., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating

student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sheninger, E. (2015). Six ways to drive a successful BYOD initiative. ASCD Express , 10 (17).

Retrieved January 15, 2016, from http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol10/1017-

sheninger.aspx

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2 nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass Publishers.

Sheingold, K. & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into

classroom practice. New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Technology in

Education.

Shulman, L. S. & Schulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36 (2), 257-271.

Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational

Review, 24 (2), 86-97.

Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretive phenomenology analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.),

Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 58-80). London: Sage.

Smith, S. M. (2001). The four sources of influence of computer self-efficacy. The Delta Pi

Epsilon, 45 (1), 27-39.

Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt & G.

Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary

education (pp. 449-460). New York: Springer.

Stolp, S. & Smith, S. (1995). Transforming school culture: Stories, symbols, values & the

leader’s role . Eugene, OR: Clearinghouse on Educational Management. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 123

Sugar, W. (2005). Instructional technologist as a coach: Impact of a situated professional

development program on teachers’ technology use. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 13 (4), 547-571.

Tabari, M. A. & Ivey, T. A. (2015). Cognitive task complexity effects on L2 writing

performance: An application of mixed-methods approaches. Latin American Journal of

Content & Language Integrated Learning, 8 (1), 55-65.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of mixed methods in social and

behavioral research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Terrell, S. R., PhD. (2012). Mixed-method research methodologies. The Qualitative Report,

17 (1), 254-280.

Thomas, L. G., & Knezek, D. G., (2008). Information, communications, and educational

technology standards for students, teachers, and school leaders. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek

(Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary

education (pp. 333-348). New York: Springer.

Tillema, H. H. (1995). Changing the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers: A training

study. Learning and Instruction, 5 (4), 291-318.

Trotter, A. (1999). Preparing teachers for the digital age. Education Week , 19(4), 37-46.

Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12 (1), 82-83.

U. S. Department of Education. (2001). No child left behind Act of 2001. Retrieved January 5,

2016, from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml

U. S. Department of Education. (2003). Federal funding for educational technology and how it

is used in the classroom: A summary of findings from the Integrated Studies of

Educational Technology. Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 124

Service: Washington D.C. Retrieved January 17, 2016, from

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/iset/summary2003.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Teachers' Use of

Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040).

Van Acker, F., van Buuren, H., Kreijins, K., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Why teachers use digital

learning materials: The role of self-efficacy, subjective norm and attitude. Education

and Information Technologies , 18(3), 495-514.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive

pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). Review of pedagogy related to information and communications

technology. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 13 (3), 235-286.

Welsh, J. & Papke, A. (2013). TIM classroom technology use: Measurement and reporting.

Florida Charter School Conference, November 20, 2013. Orlando, FL.

http://www.fcit.usf.edu/matrix

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical

analysis. Developmental Review, 12 (3), 265-310.

Willower, D. J. (1984). School principals, school cultures, and school improvement.

Educational Horizons, 63 (1), 35-38.

Wozney, L., Venkatesch, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies:

Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,

14 (1), 173-207.

Zhao, Y. & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory

perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (1), 5-30. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 125

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology

innovations. Teachers College Record, 104 (3), 482-515.

Zhao, Y. & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological

perspective. American Educational Research, 40 (4), 807-840. doi:

10.3102/00028312040004807

Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A., & Martinex-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic

attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American

Educational Research Journal, 29 (3), 663-676.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 126

Appendix A

Technology Uses and Perceptions Survey

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 127

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 128

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 129

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 130

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 131

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 132

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 133

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 134

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 135

Appendix B

Message from the Principal Note: Please use the following text to inform teachers about the opportunity to participate in the Technology Use and Perceptions Survey (TUPS) and research study at Florida Gulf Coast University. We have been invited to participate in a research study conducted through Florida Gulf Coast University involving teachers and technology. The study is being conducted by Lauri Garbo, a student in the University’s Doctor of Education program. The study focuses on the increasing use of technology in the classroom and your comfort level with its use. It includes the completion of the Technology Use and Perceptions Survey (TUPS) and interviews with select teachers.

Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) has approved the online survey instrument; in fact, this survey has been employed with our district’s instructional technology representatives from various schools. TUPS focuses on technology access and support, preparation for technology use, perceptions of technology use, confidence and comfort using technology, technology integration, teacher and student use of technology, and technology skills and usefulness. It will take you between 15-30 minutes to complete the survey.

The data from Ms. Garbo’s analysis will help us as a school determine what teachers want and need in terms of support, training, and access in the use of technology. The conclusions and recommendations synthesized from the data may be used by school and district leaders to review professional development and other forms of teacher support as related to the integration of technology in classroom instruction.

Consent to Participate in On-line Survey Portion of Research Study

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You do not need to answer any question you are uncomfortable answering. Anyone who chooses to participate in this study is free to withdraw at any time without penalty or loss of any future services you may be eligible to receive from the University or the school district. You will not be paid to participate in the study.

Your participation in the study will be kept confidential. However, working with email or the internet has the risk of compromising privacy, confidentiality, and/or anonymity. Despite this possibility, the risks are considered to be ‘less than minimal’. If results of this study are published or presented at a professional meeting, no information will be included that would make it possible to identify you as a study participant.

Should you have any questions regarding this study, please contact Ms. Garbo’s faculty advisor, Dr. Thomas Valesky, at 239-590-7793. You may be contacted by Ms. Garbo to participate in a 40-60 minute interview to learn more about your experiences and feelings related to integrating technology into your instruction. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 136

If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects' Institutional Review Board through Sandra Terranova, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, at 239- 590-7522.

Statement : All of my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time. I am aware of my option to not answer to any questions I choose.

By clicking on the survey link below, I am consenting to participate in the survey portion of the study. http://www.collierschools.tim-tools.com/login/

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 137

Appendix C

Interview Protocol

Interview Protocol for Doctoral Dissertation: Technology Integration: A Mixed Methods Study of Veteran Secondary Teachers’ Beliefs, Attitude, and Classroom Practice

Time of Interview:

Date:

Place:

Interviewer: Lauri Garbo, Doctoral Student at Florida Gulf Coast University

Interviewee:

Position of interviewee:

Questions:

1. Based on the survey results, veteran secondary teachers’ believe that technology enhances their teaching. How does technology enhance your instruction?

2. Veteran secondary teachers also reported positive perceptions regarding the ways in which technology supports student learning. What are your perceptions of technology and how it supports student learning?

3. The survey data indicates that veteran secondary teachers feel comfortable using technology. How would you describe your level of comfort with technology?

4. What specific experiences have helped you develop this level of comfort?

5. What forms of technology integration are you most comfortable using in your classroom with students?

6. Results from the survey indicated that veteran secondary teachers would like more training with technology applications. What experiences have you had with trainings or professional development sessions related to the use of technology?

7. Which technology programs, software, or applications do you currently use with your students?

8. For what purposes do you integrate technology into your instruction?

9. What type of obstacles, if any, have you encountered when integrating technology into your instruction? TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 138

Appendix D

Telephone Script from Researcher to Survey Participant

My name is Lauri Garbo. In April you participated in an online survey which was part of my research study. As a follow-up to the survey, I would like to interview you and seven other teachers to gain greater insight into the phenomenon of veteran secondary teachers and their attitudes and believes about infusing technology into their instruction.

The interview will take 40-60 minutes and will take place at mutually agreed location which is convenient for you; this could include your classroom, your school’s conference room or media center, or a pubic location such as the library. The interview will be scheduled at your convenience and can take place between May 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016.

Your participation is voluntary. I will maintain your anonymity and will not include demographic data that will allow readers to make connections between you and a particular school. I will record the interview for accuracy and later transcribe the digital audio recording. Both the survey data and the interview data will be labeled with a code. If the results of the study are published or presented, no information will be included that would make it possible to identify study participants.

Based on this information, would you be willing to assist me with my study by participating in an interview?

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 139

Appendix E

Consent

Consent Form Study Title: Technology infusion: A mixed-methods study of how veteran secondary teachers’ self- efficacy affects instructional technology-infusion

Principal Researcher: Lauri Garbo Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Thomas Valesky

You are being invited to participate in a research study conducted through Florida Gulf Coast University. Your participation in this study is voluntary. In order for you to participate in this study, the University requires that I obtain your signed consent in order for you to participate in this project. This research study is for a dissertation which will culminate in my doctoral degree from Florida Gulf Coast University.

I will explain the purpose of the project in detail, the procedures that will be used, the expected time the study will take, and any benefits or risks to you.

A short description of the study follows. Please read it and ask me any questions you have to help you understand the study. If you choose to join the study, please sign the last page of this form in front of me. You will get a copy of this form to keep. If you choose to join the study, you can leave it at any time with no penalty.

Refusal to join the interview portion of the study will not affect any future services you may be eligible to receive from the University or Collier County Public Schools (CCPS). Anyone who chooses to participate in this study is free to withdraw at any time with no penalty or loss of benefits they are entitled to.

The purpose of the study is to learn about the beliefs, attitudes, and experiences of veteran secondary teachers, those with a minimum of 15 years of teaching experience, in the CCPS district in regard to the integration of educational technology in their classrooms and to gain an understanding of the personal and school-based barriers veteran teachers may face as they strive to develop technology-infused classrooms. The conclusions and recommendations synthesized from the data may be used by school and district TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 140

leaders to review professional development and other forms of teacher support as related to the integration of technology in classroom instruction.

I am asking you to take part in the study because you have been identified as a veteran secondary teacher in one of the five schools approved by CCPS for this study.

You have volunteered to participate in an in depth interview regarding your professional experiences with and disposition toward educational technology. The duration of the interview will range from 40-60 minutes. In addition to taking notes, I will also make an audio recording of the interview which will be transcribed so that I have an accurate record of the interview.

There is a slight risk of being identified by your interview responses. I will maintain anonymity of the participants and will not include demographic data that will allow readers to make connections between the participant and a particular school.

I hope the information I get from this study will help other teachers who are striving to infuse technology into their instruction and assist school leaders adjust and direct various forms of professional development to address issues related to teachers’ self-efficacy, pedagogy, and technology-related skills.

If you join the study, I will take the following steps to keep your information confidential and secure. I will maintain your anonymity by using pseudonyms. I will not collect personal identifiers that would allow someone to identify you. The school district will be referenced as a school district in Southwest Florida. Both the survey data and the interviews will be labeled with a code, and the key to the code will be secured in Dr. Valesky’s campus office. In terms of electronic files, the key to the code will be in a password protected file, and the coded data file will be maintained on a separate computer/server. We will not release information about you unless you authorize us to do so or unless we are required to do so by law. If the results of this study are published or presented, no information will be included that would make it possible to identify you as a study participant.

You will not be paid to take part in this study.

If you have any questions about this study, you may contact Dr. Thomas Valesky at 239-590-7793.

If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board through Sandra Terranova, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, at 239-590-7522. ______

I have read this form and I understand it. The researcher answered my questions about the project. My signature indicates that I volunteer to participate in the project. I understand that if I become uncomfortable with the project I am free to stop my participation. I also understand that it is not possible to identify all potential risks in an experimental procedure and I believe that reasonable steps have been taken to minimize both the known and potential but unknown risks.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 141

Signature of Study Participant Date

Signature of Witness Date

The dated approval stamp on this consent form indicates that this project has been reviewed and approved by the Florida Gulf Coast University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research.

(239) 590-7800 • TTY: (239) 590-1450 • Fax: (239) 590-7801 • http://coe.fgcu.edu 10501 FGCU Boulevard South, Fort Myers, Florida 33965-6565

An Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer • A member of the State University System of Florida

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 142

Appendix F

Content Validity Update Study of the Technology Uses and Perceptions Survey

Content Validity Update Study of the

Technology Uses and Perceptions Survey (TUPS)

Thank you for agreeing to assist with a second content validity study of the Technology Uses and Perceptions Survey (TUPS). The TUPS was developed by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology at the University of South Florida, and there is evidence of validity for the scale from the time it was created (1999) and updated (2010). This study is intended to update the original work with a small expert panel review, taking into consideration changes that may have occurred in the field since the original scale development.

The TUPS is composed of items grouped in seven categories. A five- to six-point Likert scale is used for each item. A copy of the TUPS instrument is provided in the form of screen shots from the current online version.

Please review the items in each of the categories, and then respond to these questions.

1. Review the 7 items in Category 1: Technology Access and Support.

Analysis of Items in a Category Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree a. The items in this category are correlated and fit together as a cohesive and accurate set. b. Each of the items in this category are current and based on today’s norms. c. What item(s), if any, would you revise? (Please suggest revisions.) d. What item(s), if any, would you delete? (Please note a rationale.) e. What item(s), if any, would you add? (Please suggest items.)

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 143

2. Review the 11 items in Category 2: Preparation for Technology Use.

Analysis of Items in a Category Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree a. The items in this category are correlated and fit together as a cohesive and accurate set. b. Each of the items in this category are current and based on today’s norms. c. What item(s), if any, would you revise? (Please suggest revisions.) d. What item(s), if any, would you delete? (Please note a rationale.) e. What item(s), if any, would you add? (Please suggest items.)

3. Review the 12 items in Category 3: Perceptions of Technology Use.

Analysis of Items in a Category Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree a. The items in this category are correlated and fit together as a cohesive and accurate set. b. Each of the items in this category are current and based on today’s norms. c. What item(s), if any, would you revise? (Please suggest revisions.) d. What item(s), if any, would you delete? (Please note a rationale.) e. What item(s), if any, would you add? (Please suggest items.)

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 144

4. Review the 11 items in Category 4: Confidence and Comfort Using Technology.

Analysis of Items in a Category Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree a. The items in this category are correlated and fit together as a cohesive and accurate set. b. Each of the items in this category are current and based on today’s norms. c. What item(s), if any, would you revise? (Please suggest revisions.) d. What item(s), if any, would you delete? (Please note a rationale.) e. What item(s), if any, would you add? (Please suggest items.)

5. Review the 16 items in Category 5: Technology Integration.

Analysis of Items in a Category Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree a. The items in this category are correlated and fit together as a cohesive and accurate set. b. Each of the items in this category are current and based on today’s norms. c. What item(s), if any, would you revise? (Please suggest revisions.) d. What item(s), if any, would you delete? (Please note a rationale.) e. What item(s), if any, would you add? (Please suggest items.)

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 145

6. Review the 32 items in Category 6: Teacher and Student Use of Technology.

Analysis of Items in a Category Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree a. The items in this category are correlated and fit together as a cohesive and accurate set. b. Each of the items in this category are current and based on today’s norms. c. What item(s), if any, would you revise? (Please suggest revisions.) d. What item(s), if any, would you delete? (Please note a rationale.) e. What item(s), if any, would you add? (Please suggest items.)

7. Review the 32 items in Category 7: Technology Skills and Usefulness.

Analysis of Items in a Category Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree a. The items in this category are correlated and fit together as a cohesive and accurate set. b. Each of the items in this category are current and based on today’s norms. c. What item(s), if any, would you revise? (Please suggest revisions.) d. What item(s), if any, would you delete? (Please note a rationale.) e. What item(s), if any, would you add? (Please suggest items.)

We also want to make sure that the categories themselves are sufficient and appropriate, so please respond to the following final three questions:

8. Are the categories still current and appropriate? ___Yes ___No (If no, please describe)

9. Are there any categories that are missing? ___Yes (If yes, please describe) ___No

If yes, please suggest some sources for items, references in these areas, and/or specific items. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 146

10. Please provide any other comments or suggestions you have about this survey.

Thank you for your assistance. It is much appreciated!

Lauri Garbo, M. Ed. TSA, Gifted Compliance, Secondary Doctoral Candidate, FGCU