Teachers' Perceptions Regarding the Use of Google Classroom

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE USE OF GOOGLE CLASSROOM AND

GOOGLE DOCS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

A Dissertation

DEMIAN MORQUIN

Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University-Kingsville in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2016

Major Subject: Educational Leadership

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE USE OF GOOGLE CLASSROOM AND

GOOGLE DOCS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

A Dissertation

DEMIAN MORQUIN

Approved as to style and content by:

May 2016

ABSTRACT

Teachers’ Perceptions Regarding the Use of Google Classroom and Google Docs and

their Impact on Student Engagement

(May 2016)

Demian Morquin, B.S., M. S. University of Texas at Pan American, Edinburg, Texas

Chairman of Advisory Committee: Dr. Linda Challoo

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards, in correlation with the 21st Century Learning skills, emphasizes the importance of developing creativity and innovation, promoting communication and collaboration, stimulating decision making and leadership, stressing digital citizenship, and experiencing a digital learning culture. Google

Classroom in combination with Google Docs has been adopted by many school districts to meet

ISTE standards. Using the Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Model as a framework, this study explored teachers’ perceptions as they use Google Classroom and Google

Docs and their impact on student engagement. The results obtained from this research provide school districts with information to assist them in the decision to adopt Google Apps for

Education (GAFE) and Google Classroom as a cloud-based learning environment to reach ISTE

Standards.

iii

DEDICATION

There are many people who have impacted my life and led me to where I am today, but there are those special ones that have been with me beyond time and space. This study is dedicated to my son Liam, to my mother, Diana, to my father, Eduardo Raul, to my sister,

Gillian, to my brother by choice Martin, and to my Lord, my God and Savior.

The dedication is to my son Liam, who inspires me to be a better person and a better father, through his love, sense of humor, and affection. The dedication is to my mother, who has always endured me with self-confidence, discipline, and pure love. The dedication is to my father, who has shown me to see life from a different perspective. The dedication is to my sister, who has always supported and believed in me. The dedication is to my friend and brother Martin, who continues being a shoulder at time of turbulence. Finally, the dedication is my Lord, who has guided me throughout my life and has never let me go. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and

He will make straight your paths” (Proverbs 3:5-6). This is the end of a road leading to a new beginning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank all my professors from Texas A&M University-Kingsville for their patience, dedication and commitment toward their students. Each one of them has instilled in me their knowledge and experience which has led me to become a better person. A special thanks to my dissertation committee, Dr. Linda Challoo, Dr. Gerri Maxwell, Dr. Mary E. Green, and Dr.

Zonia Garcia-Obregon for their support, encouragement, and guidance throughout the dissertation process. I also would like to acknowledge all students in Cohort XXII for their commitment, sense of humor, and sincere caring for each other. Within that special group of students, I would like to recognize Narciso Garcia for his friendship, integrity, motivation, and his willingness to help under different circumstances: thank you.

There are exceptional people that have walked or are still walking with me on this path and have made a mark along the way: Raul and Zoe Alaniz, whose friendship and humility have touched my life in a special way; Jorge Alberto Cavazos, a life’s friend with whom I shared memories of success, failures, growth, and faith; Eloy Moran, my University soccer coach and friend, who has always encouraged me to follow the path of the Lord. Miguel Santos, special friend that is always present in special moments; my niece Francisca and nephew Fermin; my aunt Mirta and cousins, Andrea, Quique, Alejandra, and Marla who have opened the door for a new beginning 27 years ago; my uncle Carlos that has taught me to finish what I started; my grandparents, Elias, Mary, Daniel, and Clara, who, while alive, shared their tender love.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ...... iii DEDICATION ...... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vi LIST OF TABLES ...... ix LIST OF FIGURES ...... x CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 3 Purpose of the Study ...... 4 Research Design...... 5 Research Question ...... 6 Conceptual Framework ...... 6 Significance of the Study ...... 7 Assumptions ...... 8 Limitations of the Study...... 8 Definition of Terms...... 8 Organization of the Study ...... 9 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 11 Introduction ...... 11 History of Technology Integration ...... 12 The TPACK Model ...... 14 Effect of Online Learning in the Classroom ...... 17 Virtual and Web-based Educational Platforms ...... 18 Innovation and Creativity in Education through Technology Integration ...... 20 Technology Trends in Education ...... 21 Student Engagement using Technology ...... 22 Learning Management Systems ...... 24 The Leadership Role during Professional Development Implementation ...... 32

Impact of One-to-One Technology ...... 34 CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...... 37 Introduction ...... 37 Research Question ...... 38 Research Methodology ...... 38 Research Design ...... 38 Participants ...... 39 Instrumentation...... 40 Data Collection Procedures ...... 41 Institutional Review Board Approval ...... 41 Interview Site ...... 41 Field Packet and Instructions ...... 41 Data Collection and Recording ...... 42 Transcribing Interview ...... 42 Data Analysis ...... 43 Trustworthiness of Data ...... 43 Credibility...... 44 Transferability ...... 45 Dependability ...... 45 Confirmability ...... 46 Summary of Methodology ...... 46 CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS AND RESULTS ...... 47 Participants ...... 48 Diana ...... 49 Dalia ...... 49 Liam ...... 50 Jorge ...... 50 Gillian ...... 50 Raul ...... 51 Findings...... 51 Data Analysis ...... 51 Students’ Engagement ...... 52

vii

Students Among Students Collaboration ...... 54 Students’ Work Accountability and Responsibility ...... 55 Completion of Assignments ...... 56 Classroom Flexibility ...... 57 Differentiating Learning Styles ...... 58 Diversity in Pedagogical Approach...... 59 Class Accessibility ...... 61 Teacher and Student Empowerment ...... 61 Creativity and Problem Solving ...... 62 Sense of Ownership ...... 64 Time Efficiency ...... 66 Facilitate Online Resources ...... 67 Class Organization Improvement ...... 68 Disadvantages Using Google Apps for Education ...... 69 GAFE P.E.R.F.E.C.T...... 70 Conclusion ...... 71 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 73 Introduction ...... 73 Summary of Emerging Themes ...... 74 Recommendation for Practice ...... 78 Recommendation for Future Studies ...... 79 Research Conclusion ...... 81 REFERENCES ...... 82 APPENDICES ...... 94 APPENDIX A. TEACHERS’ INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... 95 APPENDIX B. TAMUK IRB APPROVAL ...... 98 APPENDIX C. CONSENT FORM ...... 108 APPENDIX D. NIH CERTIFICATE ...... 112 VITA ...... 114

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1 Total and Online Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions – Fall 2003

through Fall 2012……………………….….……………………..……………..…....26

Table 2.2 Internet Usage Statistics – World Internet Usage and Population

Statistics – June 30, 2015 – Mid-Year Update..………………………………………27

Table 2.3 Learning Management Systems (LMS) – Commercial vs. Open…………………….28

Table 4.1 Teaching Position and Experiences in the Education Field.……………………….....50

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1 Technology Integration Timeline from 1981 till present...…………………………..14

Figure 2.2 The TPACK Framework and its Knowledge Content...... ………….………………..16

Figure 2.3 Digital Divide………………………………………………………….…………...... 30

Figure 4.1 Overarching themes and subthemes…….…………………………………………....52

Figure 4.2 Subthemes for Student’s Engagement...... 53

Figure 4.3 Subthemes for Classroom Flexibility………………………………………………...59

Figure 4.4 Subthemes for Teacher and Student Empowerment...……………………………….62

Figure 4.5 Subthemes for Time Efficiency……………………………………………………...66

Figure 4.6 GAFE P.E.R.F.E.C.T. Visual…………………………………………………..…….71

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Framework for the 21st Century Learning describes the essential skills, basic knowledge and proficiency students need to master to become successful in work and in life

(Partnership, 2014). These 21st Century Learning skills encompass four areas students should develop: (1) learning and innovation skills, which include critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity; (2) core subjects; (3) life and career skills; and, (4) information, media and technology skills (Partnership, 2014). The essential skills promoted by the 21st

Century Learning Framework are also supported by the International Society for Technology in

Education (ISTE) Standards. Although there are specific ISTE standards for students, teachers and administrators, all of them focus on the importance of developing a digital culture promoting creativity, innovation, and digital age collaboration (ITSE Standards, 2015).

As part of the educational transition path into the 21st Century Learning skills and the need to meet the ISTE standards, one-to-one (1:1) and bring your own devices (BYOD) initiatives have taken place throughout the country and the world (Johnson et al., 2013). Districts in South Texas have foreseen the importance of these types of initiatives, and they have invested a large portion of their budget to make sure every student in their district has access to a digital device. One particular school district invested more than $20 million in devices and necessary technology infrastructure to support them (Holeywell, 2012). The goal behind such an important decision was to provide students and teachers with the opportunity to become familiar with new technology and assist them to develop new paths to learn, teach, and study (Holeywell, 2012).

However, having the devices is only one of the many steps on the path to acquire the 21st

Century Learning skills and meet ISTE standards. According to Williams (2012), the proper use

1 of technology integration in the classroom will help teachers to incorporate and to engage students in acquiring these essential skills. Another study also supports Williams’ findings:

Studies that look at Integration Computer Technology (ICT) use in schools in Chile and

around the world show that there is still some way to go before we really understand how

to naturally integrate technologies into the teaching and learning process in the classroom

and subsequently, impact learning. (Claro, Nussbaum, López, & Díaz, 2013, p. 316)

Following the same path, Weston and Bain suggested that replacing books with web pages, chalkboards with interactive whiteboards, and filing cabinets with electronics databases is not truly the essence of technology integration. They believe integration happens when educational practices using technology truly transforms learning by creating new experiences for the students

(Weston & Bain, 2010).

Creating, designing, developing, implementing and assessing new programs become essential in the process of technology integration. A three-year study promoting internet integration into P-12 teachers’ practice using a PD model called Project Realizing Education’s

Future: Learning through Evolving Cyber Technologies (REFLECT) concluded that changes in teachers’ practices and methodology after continuous professional development were sustained.

Among the different educational environment promoting technology and internet integration,

Google Apps for Education (GAFE) has emerged as a free resource for school districts, and its popularity, adoption and implementation have increased across the country and the world

(Tetreault, 2014).

Statement of the Problem

Nationwide, the estimated annual expenditure in educational technology in grades K-12 is approximately $20 billion, which is roughly $400 per student (Johnson, 2012). Considering the substantial amount of investment, there are high expectations of efficient and effective delivery of technology in the classroom. Having access to technology equipment and devices, such as

SMART boards, document cameras, iPads for students and teachers, digital projectors and other type of devices, does not guarantee their use have been effective and efficient during instruction.

Regardless of the devices which school districts have selected for their students and teachers, or whether school districts have opted to become a BOYD district, it is the content, the pedagogy, and the technology integration which make a difference in a lesson (Koehler, 2009). According to the NCM Horizon Report for K-12 edition, there is a trend on delivering core content using project-based learning, inquiry-based learning and challenge-based learning. This report stated

“Educational leaders are working together to develop more professional development opportunities for teachers so they can integrate deeper learning in the classroom” (NMC Horizon

Report – 2014 K-12 Edition, p. 9).

Produced by Google, the online search engine company, Google Docs is part of a suite of free applications, which users have access to via Google Drive after creating a personal Gmail account (Tetreault, 2014). The state of Oregon embraced Google Apps for Education (GAFE) since 2010, and almost half a million students, teachers, and administrators have had access to multimedia streaming, email and online collaboration tools (Ferenstein, 2010). Although GAFE is a cloud-based platform aiming to assist teachers to promote and facilitate student collaboration, innovation, and creativity, it is still considered a new educational platform (Cox,

2014).

In September 2014, GAFE launched another app called Google Classroom. After six months of launching Google Classroom, students and teachers have turned in more than 30 million assignments (Google launches, 2015). School districts, particularly in South Texas, continue to adopt GAFE as a cloud-based platform as their path to transition into the 21st Century

Learning skills necessary for the students. The lack of enough research about GAFE and the

Google Classroom as a pseudo-learning management system has triggered the need to further investigate how GAFE in conjunction with Google Classroom is affecting student learning and teacher instruction in school districts of South Texas.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative exploratory study was to research teachers’ perception regarding the use of Google Classroom as a cloud-based learning environment in combination with Google Docs. The results of this investigation provided evidence to teachers, instructional leaders and administrators that there was an impact on the different pieces of instruction such as students’ engagement, students’ assignment completion and students’ collaboration, as well as on teaching delivery method of instruction when utilizing GAFE and Google Classroom as a cloud-based learning environment.

School districts in South Texas continue to implement GAFE and Google Classroom to successfully target the students and teachers ISTE standards and the 21st Century learning skills.

Investigating the impact of GAFE and Google Classroom in the actual learning environment has provided teachers and administrators with concrete data to determine that Google as a cloud- based learning environment promotes students’ learning.

Research Design

From the constructivist perspective, the participants’ point of view provides substantial information about the research being studied. The questions should be broad and general allowing the participants the opportunity to give meaning to a situation and to generate farther discussion and interactions (Creswell, 2003). During this exploratory study, the researcher interviewed six high school teachers whose answers provided qualitative data that was analyzed to determine common themes among their responses. These new themes were generated after interviewing all the participants. The researcher opens the opportunity to new meanings while conversing with the interviewees by expressing their feelings, claims, or concerns (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985).

All six high school teachers are from districts located in South Texas. A semi-structured interview format was used that consisted of 20 questions focused on specific topics, such as self- description as an educator, knowledge about Google Apps for Education, familiarity with Google

Classroom and Google Docs, awareness about cloud-based learning environment, positive and/or negative impact on the use of Google Classroom as a learning environment, and personal as well as professional reflection about cloud-based learning environment (Wengrat, 2001). During a naturalistic study, credibility becomes an essential element to establish the trustworthiness of the research.

Establishing credibility in a naturalistic inquiry is an essential characteristic in a phenomenological study, and it represents different constructed realities that portray the areas that the interviewees have in common (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). Qualitative research aims at determining meaning in circumstances where people make sense of their life experiences (Creswell, 2003). From the exploratory perspective, this qualitative study has

5 observed, assessed, and determined the influence of an instructional tool, such as Google

Classroom and Google Docs seeking its positive or negative impact in a learning environment.

The use of various strategies, such as prolonged engagements, persistent observations, triangulation and peer debriefing, among others, become critical during a naturalistic research to ensure trustworthiness and credibility (Erlandson, et al., 1993). Credibility then is an essential element during naturalistic inquiry. During the interview process, the researcher established a friendly atmosphere so the teachers felt comfortable to interact during the interview. Credibility of data originates by the relationship between the data and what the data represent (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985).

Research Question

This qualitative exploratory study was guided to answer the following question:

What are the teachers’ perceptions with regard to the impact of students’ engagement in

and out of the classroom when they utilize Google Classroom in combination with

Google Docs to manage and deliver instruction?

Conceptual Framework

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) is an educational organization that developed standards for learning, teaching, and leading education into the 21st

Century. This association represents and collaborates with more than 100,000 professionals worldwide. ISTE created standards for students, teachers, administrators, coaches, and computer science educators (ISTE Standards, 2015). The common denominators among these standards are promoting creativity and innovation, emphasizing communication and collaboration, stimulating decision making and leadership, stressing digital citizenship, and experiencing a digital learning culture.

In conjunction with the ISTE standards, the TPACK Framework created by Mishra and

Koehler in 2007 emphasizes the importance of combining the Technology, Pedagogical, and

Content Knowledge (TPACK) during the lessons. The interaction of these three concepts will provide a solid foundation and a strong emphasis in technology integration during instruction

(Koehler, 2009). According to Koehler (2009), “There is no ‘one best way’ to integrate technology into curriculum. Rather, integration efforts should be creatively designed or structured for particular subject matter ideas in specific classroom contexts” (p. 62).

The use of Google Classroom and GAFE during instruction provides the teacher with the digital tools and a cloud-based learning environment supported by ISTE standards and the

TPACK Framework. The intention of this study is to contribute to existing research in regards to technology integration using ISTE standards and the TPACK Framework as conceptual model to support the research.

Significance of the Study

The 2015 New Media Consortium report stated that “43% of Pre-K through 12th grade students in the United States use smartphones and 73% of middle and high school teachers use cellphones for classroom activities” (p. 36). As the use of mobile devices in the classroom continues to increase, so the need to endure its effective integration in daily activities. The availability of online educational resources for teachers and students continues to grow, and school districts keep adopting and adapting to those constant changes. Launched in 2006 and first deployed to Arizona State University, GAFE has today more than 25 million users. It consists of core set of online tools that have been impacting students in different areas such as students’ collaboration, creativity, and communication (Google Company, n.d.). Google

Classroom is one of the most recent educational apps and its use and popularity have been

7 increasing among teachers and school districts; however, due to its recent implementation, there are no specific studies on the impact and effectiveness in the classroom. This qualitative study has provided information about teachers’ perception in the use of Google Classroom in combination with Google Docs as a cloud-based learning environment, and about how utilizing

GAFE impact of daily instruction.

Assumptions

For this qualitative exploratory study, the researcher assumed that the interviewed teachers have provided honest responses to each of the questions presented by the researcher.

Another assumption was that interviewed teachers had taught the same subject without using

Google Classroom and Google Docs, so their perception on the impact of students’ engagement using Google Apps for Education has a solid and reliable foundation.

Limitations of the Study

In this research, there were three main limitations. The first limitation was interviewing teachers with at least six-month’s experience using Google Classroom and GAFE. The second limitation was selecting teachers that live and work in South Texas that also met the first criteria.

The last limitation was that participants must have at least three years of teaching experience.

Definition of Terms

Cloud-Based Learning Environment is an online learning or e-learning environment where its resources are stored in a virtual environment or cloud and they could be accessed thru the web (Skillsoft, 2015).

Google Apps for Education (GAFE) is a combination of productivity applications such as email, calendar, virtual storage space (Google Drive), and others apps created by Google that are offered for free to schools and educational institutions (Google Apps for Education, 2015).

Google Classroom is a free learning management system that allows users to collaborate online, to create and submit assignments, and to communicate with students and teachers (Papas,

2015).

Google Docs are productivity apps to create different types of documents online and store them in a virtual storage called Google Drive (Overview of Google Docs, 2015).

International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) Standards are specific guidelines for students, teachers, administrators, coaches, and computer science educators to support the necessary skills, knowledge, and innovation to success in the digital age (ISTE, 2015).

TPACK Framework or Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework developed by Punya Mishra and Mathew Koehler is used by teachers as a model for instruction

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Organization of the Study

This dissertation contains five chapters. The introduction to the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions and hypotheses, conceptual framework, significance of the study, assumptions, limitations/delimitations and definitions of terms are presented in Chapter I. The literature review is summarized in Chapter II, which analyzes the history of technology integration, the effect of online learning in the classroom, virtual and cloud-based educational platform, innovation and creativity in education through technology integration, technology trends in education, the leadership role during professional development implementation, impact of one-to-one technology, and case studies about Google Apps for

Education (GAFE). Chapter III describes the methodology for the qualitative research, a description of the participants, instrumentation, the role of the researcher, and the data procedures. Chapter IV provides the findings and results of this study organized in four major

9 themes, and 10 subthemes. Finally, Chapter V presents the conclusion, suggestions for practice, and recommendations for further research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

This literature review presents relevant information covering the impact and influence of various technology integration initiatives that have been molding and redirecting education in the classroom. There are several trends and issues related to instructional design and technology.

The review of literature focuses on the history of one-to-one initiative, the effect of online education in the classroom, the emergence of virtual and web-based educational platforms like

Google in education, the innovation and creativity in education through technology integration, the technology trends in education, the leadership role during professional development implementation, the significance of professional development, and the impact of one-to-one and

BOYD technology.

Ammar and Alkhezzi (2013) emphasized the importance of technology integration in the classroom by showing that a blended pedagogical approach is more effective and efficient than traditional methodology. According to Gorder (2007), “South Dakota introduced the plan in

2006 where 20 school districts, serving more than 5,000 students, were selected as pilot sites for the Classroom Connection project” (p. 21). In addition, Gorder (2007) stated:

The project provided incentive money to school districts to initiate one-to-one

laptop/tablet programs for their high school students. The Classroom Connections project

offered technology tools to teachers and students to enhance students’ 21st century skills,

which include critical thinking and problem solving; research, writing, and

communication skills; and technology literacy. (p. 26)

History of Technology Integration

One of the first cooperative ventures that sought to discover the effect on technology in the classroom occurred between Apple and several universities and it was called The Apple

Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT). The ACOT project started in 1985 and consisted of changing traditional classrooms into classes where computers were an important tool during instruction

(Computer, 1995). The idea behind this project involved investigating how students: (1) actively rather than passively explore ideas, (2) work collaboratively instead of individually, and (3) use technology to solve real world problems (Apple, n.d.).

The ACOT project consisted of five stages: Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Appropriation, and Invention. During these phases teachers worked to transform their traditional educational environment into a technology integrated learning classroom (Computer, 1995). According to

Damarin and Bohren (1987), teachers recognized that the relationship between technology integration in the classroom and student engagement was positive and beneficial. Desktop computer labs started to appear in schools in the 1980s, which led many school districts toward the idea to create computer labs in every school (Lei, Conway, & Zhao, 2007).

In 2001, Prensky stated, “Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” (p. 1). Technology started to emerge as a fundamental change in our education system. A trend of shifting students’ leisure time toward technology started to be recorded. At the beginning of the new millennium, college graduates have spent no more than 5,000 hours of their lives reading, yet more than 10,000 hours playing video games (Prensky, 2001). In other words, “computer games, email, the Internet, cell phones, and instant messaging are integral parts of their lives” (Prensky, 2001, p. 1). The term digital natives emerged to describe those people who were born during the age of digital

12 technology and learn the digital language of computers, video games, and the internet (Prensky,

2001).

Despite the fact students were considered digital natives for the last 20 years, technology integration in the classroom is still young in terms of research and studies. According to Cuban

(1993), the percent of schools having computers increased from 18% in 1981 to 98% in 1991; on average, the ratio of students per computer decreased from 125 in 1981 to 18 in 1991. After 30 years from this study, school districts like McAllen Independent School District have been able to place a digital device in the hands of every student in the district, moving toward an initiative known as one-to-one (1:1), one device per one student (Antonacci, 2014).

The fact that the transition into 1:1 is rapidly spreading within the United States, providing a digital device to every student in a classroom is not sufficient to be considered a successful implementation. Historically, after the implementation of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the decision of standardize testing to make teachers more accountable for their instruction, schools and teachers became more hesitant to try technology integration (Ferending,

2003). In addition, teacher turnover plays a significant factor during any type of reform and initiatives, and it could destabilize new technology innovations and implementation (Cuban et al., 2001). Figure 2.1 depicts a timeline of using technology integration in the classroom from

1981 when IBM released the first personal computer till the present.

Figure 2.1 Technology integration timeline from 1981 till present.

The TPACK Model

The TPACK Framework created by Mishra and Koehler in 2007 emphasizes the importance of combining the Technology, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) during the lessons. The interaction of these three concepts will provide a solid foundation and a strong emphasis in technology integration during instruction (Koehler, 2009). According to

Koehler (2009), “There is no ‘one best way’ to integrate technology into curriculum. Rather, integration efforts should be creatively designed or structured for particular subject matter ideas in specific classroom contexts” (p. 62).

In 2006, Koehler and Mishra started a research that led to the TPACK Model. This model is created based on seven main knowledge areas: (1) the technological knowledge (TK), the content knowledge (CK), (3) the pedagogical knowledge (PK), (4) the technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), (5) the technological content knowledge (TCK), (6) the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and (7) the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK).

Based on Mishra and Koehler (2006) research, the following is a brief description of each area:

 Technological Knowledge (TK): This is the knowledge of software and hardware,

as well as the ability to select them and use them during instruction. While word

processors, browsers, Google apps are some instances of software, computer

peripherals, iPads, and laptops are samples of hardware (Mishra & Koehler,

2006).

 Content Knowledge (CK): It is the knowledge of the subject area to be taught and

learned. This knowledge contains theories, concepts, and systems including the

capability to relate them to the real world (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

 Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): The processes, practices, and methodology of

teaching refer to the PK. It also includes classroom management, lesson plan

development and implementation, and student assessment (Mishra & Koehler,

2006).

 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): This area combines the knowledge of

selecting the appropriate teaching methodology in relation to the content being

taught (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009).

 Technological Content Knowledge (TCK): It is the understanding about the

selection of specific technology based on the content area being taught, such

deciding on a particular app that will facilitate the introduction of a new topic

(Schmidt et al., 2009).

 Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK): This knowledge refers to the

understanding on how different technologies could be use during instruction, and

on how technology might modify the way educators teach (Schmidt et al., 2009).

 Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK): This is the

combination of the tree knowledge which is required by educators for integrating

technology into their instruction in any content area using appropriate pedagogical

methods (Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 125).

Figure 2.2 displays a visual representation of the TPACK Model developed by Mishra and

Koehler. The dotted lined surrounded by model indicates the context in which the framework is used.

Figure 2.2 The TPACK framework and its knowledge content.

The TPACK Model has its roots on the idea that teaching “emphasizes comprehension and reasoning, transformation and reflection” (Shulman, 1987, p. 1). Schulman (1986) defined content knowledge (CK) as “the amount and organization knowledge in the mind of the teacher and that there are ways of representing that knowledge for students” (p. 9). According to

Shulman (1986), pedagogical knowledge is the teacher’s understanding of the level of difficulty

16 to learn new concepts based on students’ preconceptions or their previous knowledge on that specific topic.

According to researchers Harris and Hofer, who had assessed the effectiveness of the

TPACK Model, teachers who have implemented this framework during their lesson have revealed increasing student-centered activities, focusing on intellectual student engagement, and selecting appropriate use of technology (Harris & Hofer, 2011; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Effect of Online Learning in the Classroom

Kyger (2008) explained that the internet has a tremendous impact in online education and introduced the research by providing information about internet technologies, online courses, and educational technology platforms. Within these areas, terms like googling and galactic networks have emerged (Kyger, 2008). Educational technology platforms like WebCT®, Blackboard® and Ecollege® have its roots in distance learning (Kyger, 2008).

Online education has become a significant form of instruction in the last fifteen years, and its acceptance and recognition have notoriously improved with the increase of the internet speed and the advance of wireless access. However, as much as the popularity of online learning has grown, so has its dropout rate (Lee & Choi, 2010). The dropout rate is categorized as follows: (a) academic background, relevant experiences, skills, and psychological attributes as part of the student factors; (b) course design, institutional supports, and interactions as part of the course/programs factors; and, (c) work commitments and supportive environment as part of environment factors (Lee & Choi, 2010). Moreover, Baran (2014) explains the success of online courses is contributed by different areas and factors:

These include time invested on planning and organization of online courses, efforts put

into managing courses, increased teaching presence, and increased social presence. These

factors were critical to students’ satisfaction, perceived learning, and development of

cognitive and social skills (p. 84).

Traditional classroom allows that given instructions be clarified almost instantly; however, online instructions need to be clear for all students (Rahimpour & Zakeri, 2011). At the same time, teachers are available for students during traditional classroom, while online classes provide specific hours to access the instructor. An online learning community built by the instructor could assist online students to collaborate and to discuss different learning activities

(Jones, 2011). During online teaching, instructors should make students feel free and comfortable to communicate among their peers to create student-centered (Wang, Chen, &

Liang, 2011).

According to Shea and Bidjerano (2010), students need to be self-regulated to succeed online since they register to online classes with their own personal learning characteristics as well as learning styles. As another form of online learning, the blended format continues to reflect a more efficient and effective learning environment due to the teacher presence during the face-to-face component (Shea & Bidjerano, 2012).

Virtual and Web-based Educational Platforms

Google and Microsoft have been competing in gaining popularity in the educational world. Both technology colossuses, Google worked intensively with each of the states since they saw this initiative as an opportunity to demonstrate the capability and potential each company has in terms of supporting education (Dessoff, 2010). Both companies offer similar alternatives and solutions. Thus, the decisions of other states or schools within states will depend on specific needs and technology culture of the clients (Dessoff, 2010).

Agcaoili (2012) stated that collaboration has become an essential factor in education as well as in business alike. The internet has created a virtual environment in which collaboration has been evolving and communication has taken a new direction. Google Docs are introduced and explained in detail how to use this instructional tool in a classroom, specifically in an

English class. The definition of Google Docs clarifies that this web-based tool allows the user to create documents, spreadsheets, presentations and drawings. In addition, the article describes the steps to create, share, collaborate, and publish any type document created with Google Docs

(Using Google, 2010).

Incorporating gaming and virtual worlds into the classroom have been increasing as a tool to improve students’ engagement. Minecraft is a game that has grown massively among children and young adults and has sold over 17.5 million copies, becoming popular by word of mouth and social media (Overby & Jones, 2015). On their article, Overby and Jones present the benefits of utilizing Minecraft as a virtual world in an Art classroom. After observing children of various age groups, he consistently observed that they are learning collaboration, basic programming concepts and problem solving skills. In addition, the author suggests expanding the use of the virtual world of Minecraft to other areas, such as history, architecture, and even mathematics (Overby & Jones, 2015). Considering that the one-to-one initiative is continuously being adopted in many different states, the virtual world of Minecraft could offer opportunities to explore new ways of teaching in an environment familiar to students.

Google for education provides a variety of applications and online resources focused on assisting administrators, teachers, and students world-wide from free productivity tools, such as

Goggle classroom, Google docs, and Google drive to class content and devices. A study conducted in 2012 in a physiotherapy department at the University of Western Cape in South

Africa reflected the impact of using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach to authentic learning (Rowe, Bozalek, & Frantz, 2012). This study shows the use of Google drive as an instructional tool that transformed students’ perceptions around learning by allowing them to become active learners. According to Rowe et al. (2012), Google Drive “afforded students a platform to develop the processes and skills they needed for the independent exploration of concepts and facts. This critical interaction with information and with each other helped them to move towards autonomous learning, empowering them to control where, what and how they learn” (p. 24).

This particular study demonstrated that educational tools like Google Drive could lead to authentic learning, leading students into a process of transformation during learning. In this particular case, the change appeared within students’ perceptions and their role during lectures.

Innovation and Creativity in Education through Technology Integration

There are many definitions about creativity depending on the context in which it is being used. The most agreeable idea is that there are many sources where creativity could originate

(Adams, 2010). According to Amabile, creativity emerges from three different, yet interrelated components: knowledge, creative thinking, and motivation (Adams, 2010). In his book

Creativity in Education and Learning: A Guide for Teachers and Educators, Cropley mentioned three elements that surround creativity: novelty, which derives from an idea or product that is unfamiliar; effectiveness that relates on how the product or idea works; and ethicality, which refers to how this idea or product would be used (Cropley, 2008).

Sternberg (2003) describes that creativity comes from three forms of intelligence, which are synthetic, analytical, and practical. During school setting memory and analytical skills are highly valued; yet in life, being practical and creative are as important as the first two (Sternberg,

2003). As professor Amabile, Sternberg also emphasizes the significance of developing creative thinking, and he enumerates twelve important ones: redefine problems, analyze your own ideas, sell your ideas, knowledge as double-edge sword, surmount obstacles, take sensible risks, willingness to grow, believe in yourself, tolerance of ambiguity, find what you love to do and do it, time allowance, and allowing mistakes. Stenberg (2003) stated that creativity is an approach to life and certain decisions has an effect on improving creativity.

Technology Trends in Education

There are several technology trends that lead businesses and educational institutions to determine a particular path. In the field of education, one of the new emerging concepts is augmented reality. While in virtual reality the user is totally absorbed in a virtual environment, in an augmented reality, the consumer is enhancing the real world scene (Fan & Cunchen, 2014). In the last few years, augmented reality has made its transition into education, where new innovations have been implemented in the classroom. Bacca, Baldiris, Fabregat, Graf, and

Kinshuk (2014) published a literature review about augmented reality (AR) in education. This literature review consisted of 32 studies on this topic issued between 2003 and 2013. Some of the most relevant findings during this review are the positive and negative impacts of utilizing AR in education settings. Bacca et al. (2014) stated,

The findings on the positive impact are: increased content understanding, learning spatial

structures, language associations, long-term memory retention, improve collaboration and

motivation. The findings on the negative impact are: attention tunneling, usability

difficulties, ineffective classroom integration, and learner differences. (Bacca, et al. 2014,

p.75)

As augmented reality is slowly moving into the field of education, new projects, researches, and studies also continue to emerge proving innovative ideas and solutions.

The New Media Consortium Horizon Project (NMC) was created with the idea to keep its members informed and updated on the latest education research. Founded in 2004, NMC has been releasing annual reports on library, Higher Education, and K-12 editions. While the library edition focuses on developing technologies related to research, Higher Education and K-12 editions emphasize new technologies and their impact on learning, teaching, and creativity in education (NMC Horizon Report, 2015). According to the NCM Horizon Report for K-12 edition, there is a trend on delivering core content using project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and challenge-based learning. Professional development for teachers continues to be created by educational leaders, so educators are able to “integrate deeper learning in the classroom” (NMC Horizon Report – 2014 K-12 Edition). In addition, among the challenges affecting educational technology adoption in schools, creating authentic learning opportunities, integrating personalized learning, guarding safety of student data, and competing in new models in education become significant trends in terms of innovative initiatives. These trends will open opportunities to more research and creative approaches to the constant change in education.

Student Engagement using Technology

Literature and research have defined student engagement as containing elements such as participation, effort, enthusiasm, attention, awareness, and contribution (Marzano & Pickering,

2011). Some of the characteristics that lead to student’s engagement are teacher’s planning and methodology of instruction. Student engagement occurs when they are able to answer the following four essential questions: (1) how they do feel, (2) how interested they are, (3) how

22 important is what they are learning, and (4) how successful they could be in doing what they are learning (Marzano & Pickering, 2011).

Similar findings confirmed the same ideas as Marzano and Pickering. In his book,

Schlechty specifically focused on student engagement, and he mentioned four factors affecting student engagement: attention, commitment, persistence, and meaning in assigned work

(Schlechty, 2011). Harris (2011) stated that student engagement usually focuses on student behavior and academic achievement; yet, there are other factors that also denote student engagement, such as attendance, school activities participation, assignment completion and earned school credits.

After a research study in two schools in central Illinois, fourth grade and high school students indicated increased in motivation, engagement, and satisfaction when blogs, graphic websites, Prezi, and movie making technology were integrated into instruction to support class content (Rafoll, Sullivan, & Al-Bataneh, 2012). A survey results indicated that while 89.4% of elementary students either strongly agreed or agreed that technology integration increases their engagement in the class, only 1% of elementary students disagreed. At a high school level,

79.4% of the students’ surveyed supports that the use of technology leads to engagement, whereas 8.1% of them either disagreed or strongly disagreed. The other 12.1% of the students were unsure on the effect of using technology in the classroom (Rafoll et al., 2012).

Another study where 332 students and their respective 13 professors were surveyed indicated that “students’ cognitive and social engagement in technology-rich classroom is significantly related to their professors’ view of effective teaching. Higher cognitive and applied engagement were reported in classrooms of professors with conceptions of effective teaching as developing students’ learning independence/self-reliance” (Gebre et al., 2014, p. 93). However,

23 although the use of technology may increase the emotional engagement of the students, research shown that student-centered technology-enhanced classroom does not have an effect on students’ learning success (Wu & Huang, 2007).

Associated with engagement, the concept of empowerment has been increasingly used in the field of education during the last few years. Mass Customized Learning (MCL) focuses on the idea of self-directed lifelong learning supported by empowering students with the necessary skills and positive attitude to become intrinsically motivated (Schwahn & McGarvey, 2012).

According to Schwahn and McGarvey, empowerment does not relate to what educators think is important but to what students believe is significant to learn. Thus, empowerment is defined as

“putting people in control of the variables that they perceive important to their success”

(Schwahn & McGarvey, 2012, p. 73).

Learning Management Systems

As technology evolves and affects all different aspects within our society, the impact in our education system will continue transforming the way we teach and learn. This transformation was mainly led by the exponential growth of technology. Indeed, Kurzeil in his book The Age of

Spiritual Machines presented the idea of “The Law of Accelerating Returns,” in which he stated the change in technology tends to be exponential, thus 100 years in progress would be equivalent to 20,000 years in the world of technology (Kurzweil, 1999). Such major changes in technology have revolutionized distance learning. Moore and Kearsley stated,

Distance education is teaching and planned learning in which teaching normally occurs in

a different place from learning, requiring communication through technologies as well as

special institutional organization (Moore & Kearsley, 2005, p. 2).

Although there are different forms of distance learning, the development and amazing growth of the internet drove online education to a completely new dimension. Among the many benefits of learning online, perhaps, one of the major advantages is the possibility, opportunity, and freedom to teach and learn anytime from anywhere (Skillsoft, 2015). However, for students and instructors to have a positive and encouraging experience in online learning, it is essential to establish a virtual classroom that is reliable, functional, intuitive, and cost effective. Virtual classrooms come in different forms, such as Second Life, Edmodo, Webex, and iLinc, but this literature review will introduce, analyze, and classify Learning Management Systems, or LMS.

The number of students enrolled in online courses has significantly increased during the last 10 years. A recent study based on responses from more than 2,800 colleges and universities within the United States shows the number of students taking at least one online course increased from 2,329,783 students in the Fall 2003 to 7,126,549 students by the Fall 2012. In addition, the online enrollment as a percent of total enrollment has increased from 11.7% in the Fall 2003 to

33.5% by the Fall 2012 (Allen & Seaman, 2013).

Table 2.1

Total and Online Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions – Fall 2003 through Fall 2012.

Students Online Annual Taking at Online Annual Enrollment Growth Least One Enrollment Growth as a Percent Total Rate Total Online Increase over Rate Total of Total Year Enrollment Enrollment Course Previous Year Enrollment Enrollment

Fall 2003 16,911,481 1.8% 1,971,397 368,427 23% 11.7%

Fall 2004 17,272,043 2.1% 2,329,783 358,386 18.2% 13.5%

Fall 2005 17,487,481 1.2% 3,180,050 850,267 36.5% 18.2%

Fall 2006 17,758,872 1.6% 3,488,381 308,331 9.75% 19.6%

Fall 2007 18,248,133 2.8% 3,938,111 449,730 12.9% 21.6%

Fall 2008 19,102,811 4.7% 4,606,353 668,242 16.9% 24.1%

Fall 2009 20,427,711 6.9% 5,579,022 972,669 21.1% 27.3%

Fall 2010 21,016,126 2.9% 6,142,280 563,258 10.1% 29.2%

Fall 2011 20,944,113 -0.1% 6,714,792 572,512 9.3% 32.0%

Fall 2012 21,253,086 1.2% 7,126,549 411,757 6.1% 33.5%

Before introducing and analyzing some of the most common uses of the Learning Management

System adopted by different colleges and universities, it is important to emphasize the use of the internet world-wide. A recent study on internet usage statistics around the world is reflecting outstanding growth in the internet usage in the last 10 years (Internet World Stats, 2015) . For example, Africa had 4.5 million internet users in 2000, yet by 2015 the estimated number incremented to 313 million, that is almost a 6,800% increase. The Middle East and South

America also indicate outstanding gains in internet usage in the last 12 years. While the Middle

East went from 3 million to 116 million internet users, South America increased its usage from

18 million to 333 million (Internet World Stats, 2015). Table 2.2 depicts the internet usage statistics from around the world.

Table 2.2

Internet Usage Statistics – World Internet Usage and Population Statistics – June 30, 2015 –

Mid-Year Update

Population Internet Users Internet Users Penetration Users % Growth World Regions 2000- (2015 Est.) Dec. 31, 2000 June 30, 2015 (% Pop.) of Table 2015

Africa 1,158,355,663 4,514,400 313,257,074 27.00% 9.60% 6839.10%

Asia 4,032,466,882 114,304,000 1,563,208,143 38.80% 47.80% 1267.60%

Europe 821,555,904 105,096,093 604,122,380 73.50% 18.50% 474.80%

Middle East 236,137,235 3,284,800 115,823,882 49.00% 3.50% 3426.10%

North 357,172,209 108,096,800 313,862,863 87.90% 9.60% 190.40% America Latin America/ 617,776,105 18,068,919 333,115,908 53.90% 10.20% 1743.60% Caribbean Oceania/ 37,157,120 7,620,480 27,100,334 72.90% 0.80% 255.60% Australia

World Total 7,260,621,118 360,985,492 3,270,490,584 45.00% 100.00% 806.00%

(Internet World Stats, 2015).

These amazing outcomes reflect the significant influence of the internet in our society, and how such an impact changed our education system and caused a constant improvement of online education, resulting in the implementation of Learning Management Systems (LMS).

There are many definitions of the term Learning Management System (LMS), yet all those definitions concur that LMS is a software application or Web-based technology to plan,

27 implement, and assess specific content or learning process. In general, a learning management system is managed by an instructor to create content, monitor student progress and participation, and facilitate resources. LMS assist to promote online or blended/hybrid courses over the internet with features for online collaboration in businesses as well as in education (Rouse, n.d.).

There are many Learning Management Systems in the market aiming to satisfy the different needs of their clients; some systems are private or corporate owned, called commercial

LMS, while some are free, known as open source. The concept of open source is often referred to as free software, yet there are several characteristics for a software application to be considered open source, such as users should have the possibility to modify the source code if desired and its functionality should not restrict other software applications (LMS Evaluation, 2011).

Table 2.3 below shows some of the most common LMSs categorized by either commercial or open source:

Table 2.3

Learning Management Systems (LMS) – Commercial vs. Open

Commercial LMS Open Source LMS Blackboard/Angel/WebCT Moodle Desire2Learn Sakai Canvas by Pearson's eCollege Instructure Edvance360 LoudCloud Jenzabar e-Racer OLAT SharePointMLS Claroline Edmodo Fedena Schoology aTutor My Big Campus ILIAS GlobalScholar Dokeos HotChalk WeBWork (LMS Evaluation 2011).

There is a new term use in online education known as Massive Open Online Course

(MOOC), which is associated with educational website such as Coursera, Udacity, and edX. In

2012, an interview to Coursera and Udacity by Forbes indicated both entities are still working on strategies to overcome issues dealing with the true aptitudes of their students, as well as the validity of their work. In some cases, students create various accounts under different names to complete assignments, quizzes and tests. Once they master the material, they register again to the same course, but this time using their actual name to obtain a perfect score or almost perfect grade for the course (Anders, 2012). This is a clear example of how anonymity in online classes could be detrimental to the validity of online education. Anonymity, being an unknown person or hiding a person’s true identity remains a major issue in cyberspace. Referring back to online education, any classwork done exclusively online is completely anonymous.

MOOC courses abide by an implicit honor code, yet not every student enrolled in Coursera,

Udacity, or edX believes and follows those principles ethics and behavior (Anders, 2012). Dr.

Daphne Koller in a presentation called The Online Revolution: Education for Everyone at the TED conference described the idea behind Coursera.

Coursera was created to bring the best quality education to the most people as we

could, so we form Coursera whose goal is to take the best courses from the best

instructors at the best universities and provide them to everyone around the world

for free (Koller, 2012).

Such an altruist idea and remarkable effort brings out another crucial concept in online education: digital divide. Although the idea presented by Koller is amazingly humanitarian, students around the world would still need some form of device allowing internet connection.

Figure 2.1 shows percentages of people with and without internet access around the world in 2008.

For example, while 26% of people in the U.S. do not have access to the internet, African countries like Ethiopia and South Africa have more than 90% of people offline. Thus in 2008, digital divide was still a very important issue to be resolved when trying to educate communities thru online education (Wakefield, 2010).

Figure 2.3 Digital Divide - A world wide view of percentage of people having and not having online access. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8568681.stm

Evidently, the world has been showing a tremendous growth on the significance in using the internet, thus MOOC education like Coursera, Udacity, and edX have greater possibilities of success in reaching distance communities; and, they are able to offer them an amazing opportunity to a higher level of instruction that, without online education, would not be possible.

So far, relevant and controversial issues like cyber bullying, anonymity, and digital divide have shown some drawback and perhaps disadvantages about online learning; however, there are also important advantages in online education. For example, single parents without the possibility to physically attend a higher level education due to various reasons could take college classes from the comfort of their home, and manage their time to do homework and complete assignment.

Online education gives students flexibility and freedom regular lecture classes do not provide.

Online education allows global education and intercultural communication, interaction, and collaboration. As mentioned by Koller, cofounder of Coursera, one online course was able to reach 100,000 in one semester—what it would have taken 25 years to reach the same amount of students if taught in regular lecture classrooms. Although the term telecommuting refers to employees without the need to commute to a central location to do their work, the same concept and advantages are presented in online education. Students taking online courses are able to use their time more efficiently by saving the trip and expense to drive to and from the university.

Further, it also becomes more versatile when planning their daily tasks, duties, and responsibilities.

For parents, it could help reduce child-care expenses, while increasing time spent with family

(Baase, 2013).

As a conclusion, the impact of online education in our educational system has affected society and influenced the law in education to reduce the negative effect of cyber bullying and anonymity. The future of education is uncertain, yet there is a strong new trend in online education, so significant issues that negatively affect online learning will continue to be addressed and evaluated to improve the quality, reliability, and growth of online education, not only within the

United States, but around the world.

The Leadership Role during Professional Development Implementation

Professional developments (PD) continue being essential during the implementation of new initiatives. A three year study promoting internet integration into P-12 teachers’ practice using a PD model called Project REFLECT (Realizing Education’s Future: Learning through

Evolving Cyber Technologies) concluded changes in teachers’ practices and methodology after continuous professional development were sustained. In addition, teachers’ beliefs were also affected by this model of professional development (Giordano, 2007). Since teachers are the key factors of any change occurring in the classroom, professional developments must be followed by constant guidance and support to achieve the desired transformation in the teachers taking part of that change (Giordano, 2007). Teachers put into practice new ideas and innovations. They are a tangible example of distributive leaders. According to Spillane (2005), “distributed leadership is first and foremost about leadership practice rather than leaders or their roles, functions, routines, and structures” (p. 144).

A successful transition of Richland County School District Two into one-to-one initiative was led by proving a strong emphasis in professional development since the beginning of its implementation. Such an emphasis included creating a new full-time position (Technology and

Learning Coach) at every school aligned with the ISTE standards for coaches (Thompson, 2014).

According to Fullan, reaching significant change depends on a process based on high quality teaching and training materials rather than individual people capacity (2007). For example, the professional development was essential to the success of the one-to-one initiative called

Classroom Connection implemented in South Dakota. By creating a partnership between The

Department of Education of South Dakota with Dakota State University (2007), technology training was presented in three different phases.

Training was offered in three phases. An initial training focused on technology and

applications and was provided for the technology coordinators of all districts. The second

training, which was for teachers and took place at each pilot site, focused on content

development and classroom management appropriate to the use of the mobile computers.

The third phase of training brought the teachers together for a final session on

engagement activities using one-to-one technology in the classroom. (Gorder, 2007, p.

20)

This implementation reflects the necessary steps to lead a successful change where each phase was carefully planned and executed.

The importance of professional development continues being a fundamental phase during the implementation of new educational methodology. In a quasi-experimental study to compare the effect of two technology related teacher professional development designs (TTPD), that was focused on assisting junior high school math and science teachers create online activity resources, it was found that a significant gain for the teachers participating (Walker, Recker,

Robertshaw, Sellers, & Leary, 2012). The two technologies related to teachers’ professional development were targeted to reach specific goals: the first TTPD focused on training teachers how to design student activities using online resources, while the second TTPD combined technology knowledge with learning to design problem-based learning activities for students

(Walker et al., 2012). Based on a research presented by Barry Fishman in 2003, “TTPD should change teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, because these correlate with classroom practice, thereby influencing student learning” (Walker et al., 2012). Professional development continues to show the effect when changes are required.

A study about the impact of professional development for online courses at higher education reveals that online instructors are involved in professional development that they could put into practice immediately, fit in their schedules, and include follow-up procedures. The professional developments are to be coordinated with their learning schedules, curricula centered, directed to a support person, and conducted by a program chair or unit leader (Baran,

2014). Leaders should be consistent with all professional development offered to ensure that proper implementation is executed, questions are answered, and support establishes a solid foundation.

Impact of One-to-One Technology

South Dakota is connecting classrooms with one-to-one initiatives. This project called

Classroom Connections is based on inquiry-based learning and was created with the intention to assist teachers in using technology effectively in their classrooms (Gorder, 2007). This plan included 20 school districts with the intention to improve students’ 21st-century skills. The reasoning behind this initiative was to be able to work from anywhere, to take notes electronically, to record lectures and presentations by teachers, to use voice to complete work assignments, to improve productivity, to retain and save important information, to manage files easily, to motivate thru technology, and to access information anytime (Gorder, 2007).

Although an information and communication technology (ICT) learning environment has solid research support on its benefits in education, there are also studies that reflect minor influence in improving learning and test scores (Tay, Sheng, Lim, Nair, & Lim, 2013). Indeed, motivation is a significant factor in the success of reaching goals (Williams, 2012). According to

Williams, there are two types of motivators, intrinsic and extrinsic, that lead people to move toward and succeed in reaching a goal. Intrinsic motivators come from the inside of a person,

34 such as a thought or a passion for something. Extrinsic motivators are external factors that influence people, such as money or prestige (Williams, 2012). Some research show ICT implementation is expensive in effort and support, particularly in terms of infrastructure (Tay et al., 2013). According to Tay et al., ICT did not have a substantial impact during the process of learning English, particularly in terms of students’ engagement, motivation, and test scores.

In addition, Weston and Bain use the term “Naked Truth” to emphasize that the success of the use of technology in the classroom is not the technology itself, but the methodology of instruction provided by the teacher (Weston & Bain, 2010). Richland County School District

Two in Columbia, SC, decided to implement a one-to-one initiative approach by providing a device to every student from 3rd to 12th grade level, which includes a total of 21,000 students.

The district selected the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR)

Model as a methodology to integrate technology in the classroom and provided teachers with support to strive in reaching the redefinition stage of that model (Thompson, 2014).

As education and school districts are adopting new initiatives such as BOYD or one-to- one, educational leaders, administrators, and teachers showed legitimate concerns on the actual rollout of devices and implementation of these initiatives. Loretta Donovan, PhD from California

State University conducted a study of seventeen 7th grade teachers and two administrators with research tool Concerns-Based-Adoption Model, which provides a framework to assess teachers’ concerns during the early stage of implementing a one-to-one laptop initiative (Donovan, 2007).

This study indicated teachers’ concerns fall into two main categories, the majority reflected concerns on how laptop computers will actually affect them personally, and the minority of teachers exposed concerns on how these devices will impact their students (Donovan, 2007).

One-to-one initiatives are happening worldwide. In a study performed in Chile, the researcher found, after observing a 3rd grade classroom on how one-to-one technology was implemented, the most frequent use of the laptops has been utilizing previous knowledge and searching for information (Claro et al., 2012). In terms of obstacles for integrating Mobile

Computer Lab into the classroom, lack of time for planning as well as lack of technical and pedagogical support hindered the use of MCL (Claro et al., 2012).

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of open-ended questions is to discover major relationships and patterns

where little is known and to provide the basis for the more precise definition of variables

and collection of categorized data. Once precisely categorized, the data can be

manipulated and related statistically in various ways to other sets of data. The

relationship between constructs is the source of “scientific” meaning.

Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, and Allen, 1993

The methodology of this study is described in this chapter. The researcher explored and analyzed the teachers’ perception in the use of Google Classroom and Google Docs as a cloud- based learning environment and its impact on students’ learning and teachers’ pedagogical approach. This qualitative exploratory study consisted of interviewing a total of six high school teachers. The participants were purposively selected based on their experience in the field of education and the time they have been using Google Classroom in combination with Google

Docs as a cloud-based learning environment (Erlandson et al., 1993). The intention during purposeful sampling is to reach an in-depth appreciation of the selected participant, rather than a population representation (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007).

The interviews were guided by a set of questions to obtain qualitative data. The collected data was transcribed and analyzed to determine common themes among their responses. Personal experiences by these teachers provided relevant information as a foundation to continue future investigation on the impact in using Google Classroom and Google Docs as a cloud-based learning environment in classroom settings.

Research Question

This qualitative exploratory study was guided to answer the following questions:

What are the teachers’ perceptions with regard to the impact of students’ engagement in

and out of the classroom when they utilize Google Classroom in combination with

Google Docs to manage and deliver instruction?

Research Methodology

Qualitative methods are stressed within the naturalistic paradigm not because the

paradigm is anti-quantitative, but because qualitative methods come more easily to the

human-as-instruments . . . It is not possible to describe or explain everything that one

“knows” in language from; some things must be experienced to be understood.

Lincoln and Guba, 1985

The researcher selected a qualitative exploratory method based on the nature of the study and on the novelty of the researched topic. A qualitative approach provides the opportunity to interpret phenomena in relation to the meaning people convey to them (Denzin & Lincoln,

2000). According to Creswell (2007), the researcher intention is to find meaning from the participants’ views by identifying common elements. This study intended to investigate the teachers’ perception in the use of Google Classroom in combination with Google Docs as a cloud-based learning environment and its impact on students’ learning inside and outside the classroom as well as its effect on the teachers’ pedagogy to deliver instruction.

Research Design

The qualitative exploratory method study was based on a total of six school teachers’ interviews. All the participants were high school teachers. All six educators were from districts located in the South Texas. Each interview consisted of 20 questions (see Appendix A) focused

38 on specific topics, such as self-description as an educator, knowledge about Google Apps for

Education, familiarity with Google Classroom and Google Docs, awareness about cloud-based learning environment, positive and/or negative impact on the use of Google Classroom as a learning environment, and personal as well as professional reflection about using Google

Classroom and Google Docs during daily instruction. Establishing credibility in a naturalistic inquiry is an essential characteristic in a phenomenological study, and it represents different constructed realities that portray the areas that the interviewees have in common (Erlandson et al., 1993).

Qualitative research aims at determining meaning in circumstances where people make sense of their life experiences. From the exploratory perspective, this qualitative study will observe, assess, and determine the influence of an instructional tool, such as Google Classroom and Google Docs seeking its positive or negative impact in a learning environment.

Participants

The participants for this qualitative exploratory study were six secondary teachers, three males and three females. All six teachers are from school districts of South Texas. The researcher utilized purposive sampling to select the participants for this study. “Purposive and directed sampling through human instrumentation increases the range of data exposed and maximizes the researcher’s ability to identify emerging themes that take adequate account of contextual conditions and cultural forms” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 82). The selection process consisted on surveying teachers to collect general information about their teaching experience and their knowledge and utilization of Google Classroom and Google Docs during regular instruction. The selection of teachers were based on the following criteria: (1) teachers must have taught the same subject with and without using Google Classroom and GAFE in a cloud-based

39 learning environment, (2) teachers must have been using Google Classroom in combination with

Google Docs for at least six months, (3) participants must have at least three years of teaching experience. The purpose of naturalistic sampling maximizes information and its intention is not to simplify generalization, “all sampling is done with some purpose in mind” (Lincoln & Guba,

1985, p.199).

Instrumentation

The primary instrument of the first phase of this study was the researcher himself. The reality is relative to individual’s perceptions which continue changes based on the interaction between each individual and the society (Elandson et al., 1993). Consequently, it is essential to the researcher to become involved with the participants, so their role as the study’s instrument relates to participants’ experiences (Creswell, 2003). Because of the nature of a qualitative study is to gather, analyze, and build the reality from the collected information, the researcher relied on his senses, intuition and thought, and he will become a key factor on the first phase of this naturalistic study (Erlandson et al., 1993). This research was based on an IRB approved set of 20 questions that were formulated with the purpose of finding common themes among the different answers from the six participants. The questions mainly focused on the participants’ experiences in the field of education, specifically in technology integration. In addition, the questions were geared toward the use of Google Classroom and GAFE and its impact during the delivery of instruction. The interviews were considered as semi-structured allowing open-ended questions that follow a broad script covering a list of topics (Bernard, 2002). This form of interview allowed the researcher to connect with interviewees on a conversational level, so participants were stimulated to share their experience in the classroom as educators.

Data Collection Procedures

During technology integration trainings, the researcher collected information on the participants’ background and teaching experience. The gathered information during this survey consisted of names, years of teachers’ experience, experience using Google Classroom in combination to Google docs during instruction, contact information, and the permission to contact them in case they were selected. Based on their answers, the researcher contacted them to invite qualified teachers to participate in this qualitative exploratory study.

Institutional Review Board Approval

After the approval process by the Institutional Review Board (Appendix B) was completed and approved, the researcher selected a total of six high school teachers from districts of South Texas. This research was based on an IRB approved set of 20 questions that has been formulated with the purpose of finding common themes among the different answers from the six participants. The questions mainly focused on the type of the experience the participants have in the field of education, specifically in technology integration. In addition, the questions were geared toward the use of Google Classroom and GAFE and its effect during instruction.

Interview Site

During the selection for an interview site, it is important for the researcher to “…seek to find the best site possible within boundaries of his or her resources” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p.

54). Participants needed to feel comfortable so they could focus during the interview. Upon participant agreement, the research proposed different sites to conduct the interview.

Field Packet and Instructions

The researcher prepared a field packet which included all items necessary for the interview. These items contained a digital recorder for the interviews, which were transcribed

41 into a word document for data analysis. Extra batteries, pens and a field notebook were included in the field packet. Finally, copies of the consent form and the interview protocol with the questions for the participants were also part of the packet.

Prior to the beginning of the interviews, the selected participants were reminded about the purpose of the study. The participants were asked to sign the consent form. After agreeing to the interview and signing the consent form, the participants received a copy with the specific questions for this study. The participants were informed that they could decline to answer any of the formulated questions, yet they were encouraged to respond to all of them to obtain the best results for this research. It is common during interviews to start with broad questions and become more specific as the interview progresses (Erlandson et al., 1993).

Data Collection and Recording

Each interview was digitally recorded with a specific and reliable recorder. In addition, field notes were taken by the researcher during the interviews. The purpose for the field notes was to record any observations made by the researcher, such as non-verbal messages, which would not otherwise be noticeable during the digital recording (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, the use of field notes provided the researcher access to reminders or tacit information implied by the participant. Once the interview was completed, the researcher thanked the participant and reminded him or her that a follow-up interview might be requested at a later time to clarify any information provided or to triangulate data (Erlandson et al., 1993).

Transcribing Interview

All six interviews were digitally recorded and then transcribed into Microsoft Word to identify the answers based on each of the 20 questions. After transcribing all six interviews, each transcription was reviewed and analyzed to determine the different themes emerging from each

42 interview. The results obtained from the analysis of each interview were color coded into a

Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. The created spreadsheet was divided in four specific columns indicating the question number, the topic, the emerge theme, and the actual interviewee response.

This approach facilitated the researcher to quickly identify the common themes from the responses among the six interviewees.

Data Analysis

The principle of interaction between data collection and analysis is one of the major

features that distinguish naturalistic research from traditional research; it probably cannot

be overemphasized. The human instrument responds to the first available data and

immediately forms very tentative working hypothesis that cause adjustments in interview

questions, observational strategies, and other data collection procedures. (Erlandson et,

al., 1993, p.114)

After transcribing all interviews, analyzing the responses, and creating a spreadsheet that provided a clear occurrence of topic, several themes emerged. The significance of these themes could be used to generate surveys for future research to be completed by teachers from other school districts of South Texas that have adopted Google Apps for Education as an educational learning platform. Although many themes might evolve during the analysis and interview transcription, only those consistent throughout the different interviews will be considered.

Trustworthiness of Data

Because the trustworthiness of a study was originated in reaching an acceptable level of credibility, the use of various strategies, such as prolonged engagements, persistent observations, triangulation and peer debriefing, among others, become critical during a naturalistic research

(Erlandson et al.1993). During the interview process, the researcher established a friendly

43 atmosphere so participants felt comfortable to interact during the interview. In addition, the researcher observed and took notes about the interviewees’ behavior that were recorded in a journal. In a qualitative study where humans are used as an instrument, responsiveness and adaptability influence the validity of the findings, so purposive sampling has presented the best option to represent the desire population that is intended to be generalized (Lincoln, 1985). The credibility of a naturalistic study depends on the inquirer’s ability to show evidence of prolong prolonged period of engagement during the interview process and observations (Erlandson et al.

1993).

Credibility

Credibility then is an essential element during naturalistic inquiry. Credibility of data originates by the relationship between the data and what the data represent (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). Credibility of the data came from the researcher’s careful selection of the interviewees based on their background and their experience in the field of education. The intention during the selection process assured the credibility of their respective answers, and it also emphasized trustworthiness of the study. The interviewees’ teaching experience ranged from four to thirty- two years in the classroom and they have been using Google Classroom and Google Docs for at least six months. The authenticity of qualitative study involved the researcher to collect substantial data. According to Gall et al. (2007), “ process validity addresses the adequacy of the processes used in different phases of research, such as data collection, analysis, and interpretation, and whether triangulation of data sources and methods was used to guard against bias” (p. 610).

The last stage was to ensure credibility related to the review of the collected data by the interviewee. Having participants revising statements to guarantee the meaning of the response is

44 correctly interpreted by the researcher assures the credibility and trustworthiness of the collected data (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007).

Transferability

In a qualitative research, transferability is to reflect that findings of a study can be applied or transferred to similar situation and informants (Lincoln & Cuba, 1985). According to

Erlandson et al. (1993), there are two recommended methods to offer transferability: (1) to provide a thick description and detailed information from a context to allow people create a clear picture of the situation, and (2) to use purposive sampling since it will “. . . maximize the range of specific information that can be obtained from and about the context” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 33). The open-ended questions selected for this research could be transferred and utilized during other future research on similar topics. The researcher used purposive sampling by selecting teachers that have been using Google Classroom and Google Docs consistently during daily instruction for at least six months. Transferability in a naturalistic research depends upon contexts between sending and receiving information. The researcher has gathered enough and detailed descriptions of data within a context and then reporting them with ample detail and precision to allow for judgments about transferability (Erlandson et al., 1993).

Dependability

In reference to dependability, Erlandson et al. (1993) stated that an inquiry must “. . . provide its audience with evidence that if it were replicated . . . its findings would be repeated”

(p. 33). Dependability was verified by the researcher by creating a journal from the interviews and interview notes (Erlandson et al., 1993). During the interview process, the researcher utilized a journal to record observations and summarized all relevant information provided by the interviewees. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), if a study is conducted in a similar setting

45 and with similar research subjects, similar results may arise. To reassure dependability, it is essential to conduct a “check on dependability” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p.34).

Confirmability

Confirmability is the process in which the researcher’s findings are protected against being bias (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). All responses from the interviewed teachers were read, transcribed and coded by the researcher. The researcher’s objectivity has been ensured to avoid biases. The investigator explained the research methodology and gave consent to the public to analyze the methodology. After each answered question, the researcher reiterated the interviewees’ response to verify that the answers provided were clearly understood. All the responses were transcribed verbatim and color coded. It is essential that the researcher separates observation from his or her own biases (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Erlandson et al. (1993) stated that, “It is in this step that the members of the setting being studied have a chance to indicate whether the reconstructions of the inquirer are recognizable” (p. 142).

Summary of Methodology

The purpose of this exploratory sequential mixed method study was to research if utilizing Google Classroom as a cloud-based learning environment in combination with Google

Docs will have an effect on students’ engagement, assignment completion, student collaboration, and teaching pedagogy in school districts in South Texas. The results of this investigation inform teachers, instructional leaders and administrators that there is a significant impact on students’ engagement, assignment completion, and collaboration as well as its effect on teaching delivery method of instruction when utilizing GAFE and Google Classroom as a cloud-based method of instruction.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND RESULTS

The intent to this study was to investigate the teachers’ perceptions using Google

Classroom and Google Docs and their impact on student engagement. The evidence gathered during this research could assist teachers and leaders administrators during the process of making decisions in the selection of adopting web-based student learning environment. This chapter will provide a descriptive analysis of the participants as well as the data themed according to their responses during to the semi-structured interviews.

The interview questions aimed to gather information from secondary teachers’ experiences about the impact on student engagement when using Google Classroom and Google

Docs. The inquiries were based on the researcher’s findings upon the review of literature.

Targeting the interviewees’ background as educators and their experience in the use of GAFE in the classroom, the first question provided the foundation and trustworthiness of this research.

Although Google Classroom has been released for only a year, all six interviewed teachers have been using it since it was first launched. In addition, all of them have been in education ranging from 4 to 32 years. Thus, teachers’ responses encompassed their experience both as classroom teachers as well as avid users of Google Classroom and Google Docs as a learning tool.

One of the goals of a portion of the interview questions was to identify the advantages and disadvantages of using Google Classroom and Google Docs during daily lessons as well as their most relevant features. This set of questions relates to the literature review that focused on the leadership role of educators, on the impact of one-to-one technology, and on web-based educational platforms. According to research, professional development for teachers continues to

47 be created by educational leaders, so educators are able to “integrate deeper learning in the classroom” (NMC Horizon Report – 2014 K-12 Edition, p. 9).

Additionally, by exploring the impact on students’ engagement, students’ completion of assignment, students’ creativity, students among students’ collaboration, and students’ critical thinking, the next set of inquiries emphasized the 21st Century learning skills when using Google

Classroom and Google Docs in daily instruction. These skills have become essential during the new millennium (ISTE Standards, 2015). The last group of questions focused on the influence of

Google Classroom and Google Docs in terms of the teachers’ pedagogy and effect on their delivery of instruction.

Participants

This study included six secondary teachers from different backgrounds: one French teacher, one Math teacher, two Social Studies teachers, one Journalism teacher, and one Biology teacher. Their teaching experiences ranged from four to thirty years; and, they self-reported that they have been using Google Classroom and Google Docs during daily instruction for at least a year. Since it launched in August 2014, Google Classroom has slowly been adopted by school districts; however, there are still not many teachers using it a daily instructional platform. As a consequence, all participants were selected using purposeful sampling to ensure they could provide data the researcher sought. According to Erlandson et al. (1993), “selecting individuals on the basis of what they can contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon under study means engaging in purposive sampling.” (p. 91). Table 4.1 presents a summary of the participants’ background and experiences in the field of education:

Table 4.1

Teaching Position and Experiences in the Education Field

Participant Current Position Teaching Experience Years of Experience

Diana High School Middle School Math, and 20 Math Teacher High School Engineering

Dalia High School All level of English, All levels 32 French Teacher of French, Technology Applications, Web-Mastery and Multimedia

Liam Instructional Middle School Technology 7 Technology Applications and Journalism

Jorge High School Middle and High School 4 Social Study Teacher Social Studies

Gillian High School Computer Lab and Biology 10 Biology Teacher Teacher

Raul High School High School Social Study 6 Social Study Teacher

Diana

Diana has been teaching for 20 years, and most of those years in Mathematics for middle school and high school. Although her bachelor degree is in Engineering, Diana pursued a career in education teaching Math in middle school and then moving into high school. Nowadays, she is teaching dual classes of mathematics and introduction to engineering at a high school.

Dalia

After 32 years in the field of education, Dalia brings knowledge and experience overall.

During all those years, she taught French 1, 2, and 3, all levels of English, and Technology

Application classes of Web Mastery and Multimedia. She has a bachelor’s degree with a major in French and a minor in English. Dalia has also completed 18 graduate hours in English, 18

49 graduate hours of French, 6 graduate hours of French, and 12 graduate hours in Technology

Applications. She is also a Google Certified Educator.

Liam

Liam started his career in education as a technology application teacher after receiving his bachelor degree in journalism, which he also taught while teaching at middle school. After being seven years in the classroom, Liam received a Master of Education and Administration that allowed him to move into an administrative position within a school district as an

Instructional Technologist Administrator. He has utilized technology as a classroom teacher and as an instructional technology district administrator as well.

Jorge

Being in education for the last four years, Jorge changed careers as a lawyer to become a social studies teacher and a coach. After practicing law for two years, he realized that his passion was teaching as he volunteers as a football coach for a high school. Such a passion in working with children triggered his transition into the world of education and led him to obtain a teaching certificate by attending and completing an alternative certification program. As a teacher he started in North Texas as a middle school social study teacher and after two years, he moved to

South Texas to become a high school social studies teacher. The use of technology integration in the classroom has been part of his teaching career since he first stepped into a classroom.

Gillian

After receiving her bachelor degree in science, Gillian moved into the field of education.

Starting as a computer lab instructor, she made her transition in the classroom as a biology teacher. During her 10 years as an educator, technology has been an important part of her

50 teaching and Google Classroom has become a daily instructional tool during her lessons after being launched in 2014.

Raul

Raul has been a teacher for six years. His career in the field of education started at a high school where he continues teaching social studies to 9th grade students. His success as an educator and his passion for technology led him to have the opportunity to teach AP classes for the last two years. After Google Classroom was launched in 2014, Raul was the first teacher at the high school to pilot it in all his classes. He has been using Google Classroom as part of his daily instruction for the last two years, while his students have been using Chromebooks since the school district where he teaches has fully moved into a one-to-one initiative.

Findings

Data Analysis

After transcribing all six interviews, analyzing the responses, and creating a spreadsheet that provide a clear occurrence of topics, four major themes emerged: students’ engagement, classroom flexibility, teacher and student empowerment, and time efficiency. The significance of these themes appeared regularly throughout all the responses provided by the interviewees. The teachers’ answers were related to the questions about the impact of using Google Classroom and

Google Docs during instruction.

The overarching themes were supported by subthemes acting as contributing factors.

Students’ engagement was supported by students among student collaboration, students work accountability, and completion of assignments. Classroom flexibility included differentiating learning styles, diversity in pedagogical approach, and class accessibility. Teacher and student empowerment embraced both educators and learners thru creativity and problem solving, as well

51 as sense of ownership. Finally, time efficiency influenced both the instruction and the learning by facilitating online resources and improving class organization. Figure 4.1 provides a visual representation of the major themes and their influence on students and teachers.

Figure 4.1 Overarching themes and subthemes.

Students’ Engagement

The definition of student engagement varies from educator to educator; however, there are several concepts that are common factors among all those definitions. Barkley (2010) defined student engagement as “a process and a product that is experienced on a continuum and results from the synergistic interaction between motivation and active learning” (p. 9). Another

52 definition refers to the level of curiosity, attention, passion, and motivation that students are displaying while learning (Student-Engagement, 2016). The different meanings about students’ engagement also were reflected on the teachers’ responses during the interview. While Dalia perceived that student engagement is up to the teacher by providing lessons that lead to attention, interest and passion from students, Liam stated that “Student engagement is students focusing on the work that they have to do, the actual task, whether it's a journal activity or whether it's an assignment that I give them.”

The introduction on Chapter I of this research study made reference to the ISTE

Standards and the 21st Essential Skills, which stressed the significance of developing the ability to collaborate and communicate. Based on the data analysis, the use of Google Classroom and

Google Docs has an impact on students’ engagement and it is related to three factors: student among student collaboration, student work accountability and responsibility, and completion of assignments. Figure 4.2 shows subthemes for Student’s Engagement.

Figure 4.2 Subthemes for Students’ Engagement.

Students Among Students Collaboration

The use of Google Classroom and Google Docs during daily instruction allows students to share, discuss, and collaborate inside as well as outside the classroom, so students’ engagement does not end when students leave the classroom; it actually begins during class and it extends beyond the classroom’s walls. During the interview, Diana indicated,

When they do a project on Google Docs or the Slides they work together. They

have to share because there will be a group project; and, they have to turn it in as

a group, so they work in groups, and they share and they're working together. In

one particular occasion, I was in school on a Saturday and there were kids on the

cafeteria working on a project using their Chromebook, and they were working

together collaborating.

In addition, Liam who used to teach journalism and computer application classes and now works as an instructional technology for a school district stated,

Collaboration is a pretty key as long as you design it in a way that is going to get

positive collaboration. I remember back when I was at school and we would have

to go and do PowerPoint presentations, and we walk around with the USB drive.

Now it is real time collaboration. They are able to do right there and then, at their

own computer at home, or wherever they are at as long as they have an internet

connection.

Liam also indicated that possibility when using GAFE as teaching platform.

In Google Classroom when we would collaborate, I would tell my students, if

you ever have a question after hours, post it on Google Classroom and let's see if

someone else goes in there and answers it before I go and answer it for them.

Other kids would go in and help them out, and all of a sudden you had peer-to-

peer teachers, where students are teaching students. They were able to teach each

other from their own experience and from their own knowledge. Collaboration

was amazing.

Collaboration among students when using Google Classroom and Google Docs have also been stressed by Raul, who stated that “when you’re utilizing Google Docs and Google Drive then they [students] are able to collaborate back and forth. A lot more of that energy goes into the content as well as to their creativity, so they can be creative with the content.”

Student among student collaboration is only one of the factors supporting student engagement. Student’s accountability is another subtheme that has emerged when teachers are using Google Classroom and Google Docs.

Students’ Work Accountability and Responsibility

As online education continues to grow, learning management systems (LMS) have become an intrinsic part of University and College courses. LMS promotes online or blended/hybrid courses over the internet with features for online collaboration in businesses as well as in education (Rouse, n. d.). However, as much as the popularity of online learning has grown, so has its dropout rate (Lee, 2010); thus, both students’ work accountability and responsibility become essential to increase the students’ success when taking online courses.

Based on the interviewees’ responses, the use of Google Classroom and Google Docs has a positive impact on students’ sense of responsibility. Dalia acknowledged that idea when she stated that

. . . one of the students’ benefits in using Google Classroom is that they are

learning to be responsible by making sure they have their work done. Almost all

assignments are posted on the Classroom site, so if they are absent, they can look

on Google Classroom and get their assignments.

The same concept was supported by Raul when he said that the instructor needs to teach students how to be respectful to each other, so communication comes into play. “I teach them what is proper etiquette when using Google slides or when they are making a presentation or using

Google Docs.”

A third theme that supported students’ engagement was completion of assignment in class as well as homework. Based on teachers’ responses, using Google Classroom and Google

Docs has positively impacted the returned rate of students finishing assignment outside the classroom.

Completion of Assignments

According to the interviewed educators, having students completing daily homework has always been a difficult issue for the teachers. After reviewing teachers’ answers, the researcher found that using Google Classroom and Google Docs has increased homework completion. Jorge indicated that having students utilize Google Classroom has significantly increased the rate of homework completion compared to the traditional paper and pencil or worksheet types. He then added, “ . . . that is what I see just since the kids work a lot better today because they are different than us when we were students.”

In reference to the same topic, Gillian indicated that

They [students] complete the assignments faster just because they get to type.

They like to type. Even at home, they will go home and complete assignments at

home. Whereas if I were to give them paper homework I wouldn't see it, but if it

was uploaded in the Classroom and on the Docs they were able to complete it on

their end. They don't realize that it's basically the same thing, but just because

they have the laptop and they're able to use it works.

However, Liam stated that assignment completion does not always happen even when using Google Classroom and Google Docs. The reason behind students’ failure to finish assigned homework is that many students, even though they have a device to take home, they lack internet connectivity at their home, and they do not have any form of transportation to go to public areas with Wi-Fi access.

Classroom Flexibility

Student’ engagement led to a second theme that arose from the data analysis and it was identified as classroom flexibility. In essence, classroom flexibility is related to teachers’ pedagogy, students’ ability to gather new information with different learning style, and easiness to access class information. Raul indicated that Google Classroom provides him the flexibility to change or adjust previously created documents. He also stated,

That flexibility it allows me, I can adjust my lessons and what it is we’re doing

based on the interests and the motivations and the skill level of my students. Then

that in turn increases engagement. One thing I found is engagement is incredibly

increased by the fact, with the collaboration, the way they’re able to collaborate.

They can hold each other accountable a little bit.

Classroom flexibility included differentiating learning styles, diversity in pedagogical approach, and class accessibility. Figure 4.3 shows subthemes for Classroom Flexibility.

Figure 4.3 Subthemes for Classroom Flexibility.

Differentiating Learning Styles

According to the data gathered from the interview, the use of Google Classroom and

Google Docs provides teachers with the opportunity to target students with different learning styles, so teachers have the flexibility to use Google Apps for Education (GAFE) to reach students in a numerous approach. Gillian stressed that capability of Google Classroom when she stated that “I can access miscellaneous materials for the students, they are able to see the value in learning in various ways. This allows students with different needs and learning styles to be able to excel.”

In addition, Jorge supported the same idea when he indicated that

They [students] work a lot better if they’re allowed to sit there, listen to their

music, type . . . and every now and then they’re going to click back and forth

through a couple of websites that they’re not supposed to be on but the kids today

are different. They’ve grown up in an environment where they have consistency;

they don’t have to be bored.

Dalia also mentioned that GAFE provides students the possibility to learn by using “a full range of apps available thru Google for Education by using Google Docs, Google Slides, Google

Forms, and Google Drawings.” Students’ learning styles is supported by the way teachers deliver instruction.

Diversity in Pedagogical Approach

Diversity in pedagogical approach is another subtheme that supports classroom flexibility. Diana R. confirmed that using Google Classroom and Google Docs is conducive to taking control of a lesson that “[my lesson] is actually more student led. I can just assign a determine topic, give directions, and the kids will go on their own.”

Also Dalia felt that Google Classroom most definitely has an effect on her teaching pedagogy.

The way I teach has changed since implementing Google classroom. Before

Google classroom I used Edmodo which is similar to Classroom. I really prefer

using an online system for my approach to teaching. Through Google for

Education, my teaching has changed. Most of this is because Google for

Education is changing in response to teacher input for improvements. I believe

that Google listens to teachers and their needs.

Liam provided a concrete example on how Google Classroom has transformed his role as a teacher when he stated,

My role as educator is to lead them [student] into the right direction by providing

them with knowledge and so that they can succeed. Their role is to figure out how

they need to go in there and learn something on their own, and they need to figure

out what they can do to make themselves successful. We have to give more

responsibility to the students. If we don't want to give the responsibility to the

students, we shouldn't be teachers.

However, Liam also stressed the need and the importance of teacher’s preparation. The use of technology could become an important factor within a lesson, but the teacher must have the knowledge on when and where technology should be included during instruction. Such a statement reinforced the important of using the TPACK during instruction. Liam M. emphasized that Google Classroom and Google Docs only benefits students as long as the teacher has a purpose for its use.

Jorge provided a concrete example of technology integration during his lessons using

Google Classroom.

In a unit about globalization, we use a podcast called Planet Money where they

follow the creation of the t-shirt all the way from genetically modified seeds in

Wisconsin through the entire process and going back and forth. We go through

each one of those podcasts and I let the kids, either listening to it or reading the

transcript, whichever one works better for them. They [students] are just looking

for places, people and things, then they put that in, they have a short description

of what is going on there, and they identify whether it is primary, secondary,

tertiary or quaternary economic activity. Then we color code the map based on

what level of activity it is; then they can follow. That is our unit on globalization.

Class Accessibility

Teachers’ perceptions on the use of Google Classroom and Google Docs during daily instruction supported the concept of classroom flexibility, since its use provides teachers as well as students the possibility to access lessons and resources any time they needed and from anywhere as long as they have access to the internet. Raul indicated that “Google for Education helps that students have all the materials they need at their fingertips. It also gives them access to their assignments and the teacher 24/7 if need be.”

According to Jorge, Google Classroom allows students access all the homework and daily lesson when they are not at school, and he added,

. . . by using Google Drive we are less reliant on things like textbooks and pre-

designed activities or just making so many copies. I can be a lot more flexible and

respond to what the students are interested in, or what I see the students are doing

well at, or what they are struggling with. It makes it a lot easier for me to have a

student center to post, coach in my classroom because I’m not dependent on

printed materials.

Gillian mentioned that she has benefited from using Google Classroom because she can upload an assignment at any time morning, afternoon or night, and grading also becomes so much easier as well, especially if she is using the Google Forms.

Teacher and Student Empowerment

During this research, teachers were asked about the concept of students’ empowerment and all of them coincided with the idea that empowerment relates to giving students a sense of ownership to their work, which lead them to become creative at problem solving.

In reference to empowerment, Raul indicated that Google Classroom and Google Docs provide students the platform to take ownership of their work and the possibility to create and present what they have learned by using Google apps like Doctopus, Google Slides, or even make use of add-ons. Thus, teacher and students’ empowerment is supported by creativity and problem solving as well as a sense of ownership. Figure 4.4 shows subthemes for Teacher and

Student Empowerment.

Figure 4.4 Subthemes for Teacher and Student Empowerment.

Creativity and Problem Solving

Dalia mentioned that GAFE provides students the possibility to learn by using “a full range of apps available thru Google for Education by using Google Docs, Google Slides, Google Forms, and Google Drawing”. She added that once you give the students the opportunity to release their creativity, “it is amazing what the kids will come up with.”

All teachers agreed that Google for Education allows students to explore more than one way to solve a problem by providing them with the tools in an environment that they feel

62 comfortable to work. Raul stated that “the best thing we can teach students right now is that there are many ways to solve a problem. They have to find the way that works best for them.”

The teachers also concurred with the idea that using the whole Google suite of products gives students the ability to produce multiple ways of expressing themselves. Liam indicated that

“Google keeps adding to apps, giving students and teachers access to these products from most any tool such as computer, Chromebooks, tablets, and cell phones. This is a powerful tool for students and teachers.” In addition, when Liam was asked specifically about how Google

Classroom and Google Docs affect student creativity he said,

They [Google Classroom and Google Docs] enhance it. It's another opportunity

because you can take pen and paper; you can cut this and that. These are easily

duplicated, but with this Chromebook and classroom itself, it allows me to create

the kind of canvas I want with the students. It allows them to see what I want and

have it there, and they're able to present it and promote it. The ideas are a little bit

more thoroughly.

Google Apps for Education provides tool to nurture creativity not only for students but for teachers as well. Jorge described a particular lesson about the variety of death rituals on different religions and how he used Google Classroom to promote the interest among his students.

For example, this year when we did world religions, I had something called Stress

Apple. At the beginning of the year I actually did a Google Drive and Google

Apps training. After the training, one of the gifts I got was a little teacher’s apple;

it was actually a stress ball in the form of an apple, so students named it Stress

Apple. The kids liked to play with it until one day it broke. It died. Since I was

teaching religions, I decided to assign everybody a religion, so students will have

to give a funeral to Stress Apple based on the religion that was assigned to them.

Google Classroom allowed me to easily upload this assignment to different

groups of students, so they could work as a team. By the following day, each

group had returned the assignment as group using Google Classroom to upload

their presentation that had created using Google Docs.

After Jorge provided an actual example of how Google Classroom and Google Docs has been used as an instructional tool to promote teachers and students’ creativity, the significance of sense of ownership comes into place, which another subtheme that support innovation and originality.

Sense of Ownership

According to Schwahn and McGarvey (2012), the concept of empowerment has been increasingly used in the field of education during the last few years; and, it is related to the idea of self-directed lifelong learning supported by empowering students with the necessary skills and positive attitude to become intrinsically motivated. During this research study, the interviewed teachers consistently associated students’ empowerment with a sense of ownership, which concurred with the definition of empowerment mentioned in the review of literature chapter.

Gillian indicated that students feel empowered when they work on their own without any assistance by the teacher, while Diana stated that “student’s empowerment is student ownership of learning.” In addition, Liam believes that students are empowered because they understand how to use the applications and they could work freely to complete assignments. Dalia agreed with the other teachers statements when she said,

While student engagement is up to the teacher – hopefully teachers provide a

lesson which causes attention, interest and passion on the part of the student -,

Students’ empowerment is up to the students. They are responsible for their

ownership of their learning.

Diana also commented that she has been flipping her classroom, where she uploaded a video or information for students on Google classroom, and they were supposed to view it, so that they would come ready with questions. For the Google Docs, she has used those apps mostly in her engineering class where after students do an experiment, they have to write reports. Students work in groups and they are on different computers, but they all work on and modify the same document. That helps them to take ownership and to be more engaged.

The sense of ownership was also reflected as teachers when they use Google Site to build their own website and link important information as well as a link for students to access Google

Classroom easily. Jorge emphasized the impact of Google Apps when he stated:

The way I have been running my class is everything’s on my Google website. I

created a Google website. Everything is on there and I use the blog page, so I just

post on and it’s the last one up there. It’s been incredibly simple for me. I have a

link to Google Classroom and link to resources. Students have a quick access to

all my information and all the assignments that I upload into Google Classroom.

In reference to sense of ownership, Raul added that the children in his classroom today are different than those born 10 years ago, where having constant access to internet is natural for them, thus “being able to utilize the technology, and do their work within the digital space where they spend most of their time anyway, increases engagement greatly and empower them to solve problems in different ways.” Such a level of empowerment, for students as well as for teachers,

65 connect directly to the amount of time it takes to create new assignments, organize them, and upload them into a cloud learning environment, which lead into the last theme that have emerged after analyzing teachers’ responses: time efficiency which influenced both teacher’s instruction and student’s learning by increasing online resources and improving class organization.

Time Efficiency

Literature review on the leadership role during professional development implementation showed that providing reliable online resources and training teachers on effective classroom management lead to utilize preparation and instructional time more efficiently. Based on teachers’ responses, the time needed to organize instructional material and to provide effective instruction is significantly reduced when they utilized Google Classroom and Google Docs.

Time efficiency is supported by Liam when he stated that “I have benefited from using

Google for Education. The main benefit for me as a teacher is freeing me from having to make massive amounts of photocopies. Everything we do in class is now on Google Classroom.”

Figure 4.5 shows subthemes for Time Efficiency.

Figure 4.5 Subthemes for Time Efficiency.

Facilitate Online Resources

In the today’s world of education where students could find any information by simply searching the internet, providing reliable and trustworthy online resources becomes essential.

Google Classroom allows teachers to easily post useful links to online resources that students could use for specific assignments. Students are benefited with these online resources since their time is used more efficiently to complete their homework rather than to find information on the internet. In reference to posting resources for students on Google Classroom, Raul stated,

I can create my own resources, so I make a lot of You Tube videos using iMovies

with my iPad that are just quick, kind of a flip classroom type approach, where

you just do a quick explanation of what you’re going to do and then I upload and

save my resources in Google Drive. That’ll be my 2 or 3 resources that I place

into Google Classroom and then the assignment will be underneath. Then I create

a template that I just get out to the students. I get that information out to the

students all in a centrally located place. All they’ve got to do is accessing

classroom.google.com everyday, click on my class and the last thing up there

should be what we’re working on that day. It makes workflow incredibly simple

and it cuts my preparation time probably by 75%.

Liam also indicated about the facility to quickly add resources to students when he said,

There are times where I want to have them take notes, just to have them write, but

there are sometimes when I need them to get the information right away. Now I

can drop my slide in the classroom, they open the links, and they're following

along to it. If they want to take notes to it, I can direct them with it….it's like a

delivery system, it gives them the information quicker.

Managing time efficiently is a combination of both facilitating access to online resources and organizing class effectively. According to the interviewed teachers, Google Classroom has helped them to improve organizing their classes.

Class Organization Improvement

The number of classes that the interviewed educators are teaching ranged from a minimum of five to a maximum of seven. Keeping the class material and resources organized, accessible, and easy to be assigned could certainly affect their preparation time as well as the time they need to grade and return assignments. In reference to being organized by using Google

Classroom, Diana said,

As a teacher, I guess that I'm more organized now. I have to put up information

for my students before I teach it, so that helps me with my organization, with

questions that students might have. I come up with questions, which helps my

questioning skills that I want students to answer. I also use the Google Docs, I use

Flubaroo, where I can come up with questions, either multiple choice or not, but

then Flubaroo will grade or collect the students answers.

Similarly, Dalia also said,

As stated before all materials are online and in Google for Education. I use this

material when delivering lessons. I also show them how to take notes, how to

organize these notes, and how to find them when they need them again.

The uploading time to have resources ready online is another benefit of using Google Classroom.

Gillian confirmed the importance of having quick uploading time when he stated that “. . . there is a pure speed to the fact that I could get it to them right away. Files are loading up great. The

68 loading of it has been improving more and more as the use is continues.” In the same way, Liam

M. also indicated,

It’s just all about classroom management. I think with any technology, especially

in the classroom, the biggest problem relates to implementation. Google

Classroom is an entirely new piece when it comes to classroom management, and

[as a teacher] you have to be flexible to develop new techniques in order to

manage the classroom and make sure we [teachers] keep our students on task.

However, as many benefits teachers have manifested when using Google Apps for

Education during daily instruction, they have also specified several disadvantages in the use of

Classroom Google and Google Docs.

Disadvantages Using Google Apps for Education

During the interview, teachers have also shown concerns about certain issues regarding the use of web-based applications, whether they use it in class or they utilize it for assigning homework. One of the disadvantages that were mentioned by the teachers is the students’ dependency over the internet, causing students lack motivation to learn new material as almost any information could be found with a simple search. Another concern that teachers have encountered is the lack of connectivity beyond school settings. Since not all students have internet access outside the school, they are not able to connect to the internet from their home even though school provides them a device to every child.

School policies and school filtering programs also interfere with the use of technology in school settings. Many school districts still have issues about the amount of control teachers and students should have in the school. Although student safety is one of the most important issues within school districts, some of the school policies affect the possibility to take technology to the

69 next level. Even though Google Apps for Education has its own filtering system, school districts still have to work around school policies. Teachers also commented that display format Google

Classroom uses to show assignments are inconvenient for students to find them. Nevertheless, the overall teachers’ perception in using Google Classroom and Google Docs during instruction reflects more advantages than disadvantages.

GAFE P.E.R.F.E.C.T.

After analyzing the interrelated themes and subthemes that have developed from the different answers provided by the teachers, a new concept has evolved into a meaningful acronym. Google Apps for Education Promoting Engagement, Responsibility, Flexibility,

Empowerment thru Creativity, and Time efficiency (GAFE P.E.R.F.E.C.T) summarizes the most important ideas emerging from the teachers’ perceptions when they are using Google Classroom and Google Docs. GAFE assists teachers to PERFECT student learning using a web-based environment that is robust, reliable, and intuitive, bringing both educators and learners into a new dimension of learning. Figure 4.6 provides a visual representation GAFE P.E.R.F.E.C.T.

Figure 4.6 GAFE P.E.R.F.E.C.T. Visual

The GAFE P.E.R.F.E.C.T concept could be utilized to identify different apps to develop or improve each specific area during instruction preparation, lesson delivery, or student assessment.

Conclusion

This chapter presented the findings on the teachers’ perceptions when they are using

Google Classroom and Google Docs and their impact on students’ engagements. The emerging themes are important for educators because they provide information on how Google Apps for

Educations (GAFE) affect students’ engagement, collaboration, organization, and creativity. It is evident that Google for Education as a cloud based-platform to interact and empower students has a positive impact during instruction.

The participants shared their experience as classroom teachers and they realized that the benefits of using Google Classroom and Google Docs during their preparation time, their instruction, and their delivery method provide them and their students with an ideal learning environment. Teachers have made clear that there is not one unique way to integrate technology during daily instruction, but having a reliable and flexible cloud-based learning environment has a direct influence in students’ engagement. As mentioned by Liam in his closing remarks,

For me, Google has done a very good job of creating a program that is going to be

able to allow the teachers to empower the students. We're empowering the

teachers to empower the students. One thing that I always told my students from

the very beginning was that everyone's a leader, and Google is helping us do that

because we're being able to take charge of our instruction in a way that has not

always been there.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The primary purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the teachers’ perceptions using Google Classroom and Google Docs and their impact on student engagement. Focusing on discovering the effect of adopting Google Apps for Education (GAFE), particularly Google

Classroom and Google Docs, and their impact during instruction, the researcher interviewed six secondary educators whose teaching experiences ranged from four to thirty-two years in the classroom. School districts in South Texas continue to implement Google Apps for Education and Google Classroom to successfully target students, teachers, and administrators ISTE

Standards as well as the 21st Century learning skills, such as collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking known as the 4Cs (Partnership, 2014).

During this study the teachers answered twenty open-ended questions, focusing on their background, their experience using Google Classroom and Google Docs in the classroom, and their perception on how using Google Apps has influenced areas such as collaboration among students, students’ creativity to solve problems, students’ engagement during instruction, and also teachers’ methodology and content delivery. Patton (2002) stated, “The purpose of gathering responses to open-ended questions is to enable the researcher to understand and capture the points of view of other people without predetermining those points of view…” (p. 21).

After analyzing the teachers’ responses, the researcher has found common themes that emerged during this research. These results aimed to inform teachers, instructional leaders, and administrators if using Google Classroom and Google Docs has a direct impact on students’ engagement during instruction.

Summary of Emerging Themes

There are four overarching themes that have emerged from the responses provided by the interviewed teachers. These main themes are students’ engagement, classroom flexibility, teacher and student empowerment, and time efficiency. In addition, ten subthemes act as supporting factors, which emphasize the impact of using Google Classroom and Google Docs during daily instruction. Students among student collaboration, students’ work accountability and responsibility, and completion of assignment contribute to the first theme, student’s engagement.

The next three subthemes which were: differentiating learning styles, diversity in pedagogical approach, and class accessibility, support the second central theme classroom flexibility. The third overarching theme which was identified as teacher and student empowerment is embraced by creativity and problem solving skills. Finally, time efficiency which is the last theme is influenced by increasing online resources and improving class organization.

All teachers agreed that students’ engagement is a key factor to maintain students motivated to learn, to build students’ knowledge, and to stimulate students’ interest in the subject being taught. Schlechty (2011) specifically focused on student engagement, and he mentioned four factors affecting student engagement: attention, commitment, persistence, and meaning in assigned work (Schlechty, 2011). Harris (2011) stated that student engagement usually focuses on student behavior and academic achievement; yet, there are other factors that also denote student engagement, such as attendance, school activities participation, assignment completion and earned school credits.

Students’ responsibility also is mentioned as an important skill to be mastered by students and Google Classroom provided the students a reliable web-based environment, where they felt comfortable to work and complete daily assignments thoroughly. According to the teachers

74 responses, their students live in a digital world and using Google Classroom in conjunction with

Google Docs made them embrace the freedom to work collaboratively and to communicate effectively.

Working in a web-based environment such as Google Classroom offers teachers as well as students the necessary flexibility to continue to work even beyond the classroom walls.

Among the many benefits of learning online, perhaps, one of the major advantages is the possibility, opportunity, and freedom to teach and learn anytime from anywhere (Skillsoft,

2015). The possibility to be able to access class information anytime and from anywhere gives students the option to review class notes or complete their homework assignment on their own time. The same degree of flexibility provides teachers the opportunity to use instructional time more effectively. In addition, teachers’ responses indicated that the implementation of Google

Apps for Education target the different learning styles. Students’ learning styles varies from learner to learner. The VARK Model identified four types of learning: visual, auditory, read/write, and kinesthetic. While a visual learner focuses on graphs, diagrams, and maps for example, an auditory learner retains information better by group discussions, lectures, or speaking. On similar manner, read/write learners prefer the use of words to assimilate new concepts; and, kinesthetic learners favor actual practice or hands-on activities (Walsh, 2011).

According to Shea and Bidjerano (2010), students need to be self-regulated to succeed online since they register to online classes with their own personal learning characteristics as well as learning styles. Visual learners are targeted when teachers are using Google Classroom to easily upload Youtube videos for instructions, reviews, or assignments. Similarly, read/write learners are benefited using Google Docs, while kinesthetic students have the opportunity to work with different Google Apps such as Google Slides or Google Draw. Classroom flexibility

75 is also shown during instruction by offering teachers the option to present new content thru a diverse methodical approach, such as student led instruction, peer-to-peer teaching, or collaborative learning.

The TPACK Model distinguished the Pedagogical Knowledge of the instructors as one of the three main factors in the occurring during a lesson. Diversity in pedagogical approach is another subtheme that has emerged within classroom flexibility. In the literature review section, it was mentioned that teachers who have effectively implemented the TPACK Model during their lesson have revealed increasing student-centered activities, focusing on intellectual student engagement, and selecting appropriate use of technology (Harris & Hofer, 2011).

Teacher and student empowerment is the third theme that has emerged in this study.

Supported by students and teachers creativity, and a sense of ownership, using Google

Classroom and Google Docs as a web-based learning environment inspires the educator’s ability to design unique lessons and triggers students creativity and imagination to develop critical thinking abilities, which are part of the 21st Century essential skills expected to be develop during daily instruction. Kyger (2008) explained that the internet has a tremendous impact in online education and introduced the research by providing information about internet technologies, online courses, and educational technology platforms.

Throughout the research, the interviewed teachers have emphasized the importance of having a sense of ownership during the assignment of projects. Teachers also stated that having quick and easy access to reliable search engines like Google, students get submerged on groups assignments bringing a sense of pride and completion after they turn them in using Google

Classroom.

Class preparation and classroom management are topics of constant review by teachers as well as by administrators. Based on this study, the use of Google Classroom and Google Docs significantly decreased the amount of time teachers are requiring to prepare their classes. Time efficiency is the last theme that has standout from this qualitative research study. One of the teachers in particular stated that using Google Classroom has reduced his workload to 75% in addition to making his lesson paperless, since all his material and resources are uploaded into

Google Classroom. In addition, all teachers agreed that Google Classroom facilitate accessibility to online resources which also reduce prep time. The interviewees also indicated that most of their grading happens online, either by using add-ons like Flubaroo or grading directly from

Google Classroom.

However, as much benefits that Google Classroom and Google Docs are bringing to daily instruction, there are several setbacks that need to be considered and that were also mentioned by the interviewed teachers. One of the issues is the lack of connectivity beyond school settings.

Unfortunately, not all students have internet access outside the school. Being a low socio- economic area, many families from South Texas do not have the accessibility to wireless internet, so students are not able to connect to the internet from their home even though school provides them a take home device. Another disadvantage that was mentioned is the dependency of the internet, causing students lack of motivation to learn new material since almost any information could be found with a simple search.

School filtering and school policies also affect the use of technology in school setting.

Many school districts still argue about the amount of control teachers and students should have in the school. Although student safety is one of the most important aspects within school districts, some of the school policies are hindering the possibility to take technology to the next

77 level. While Google Apps for Education has its own filtering system, school districts still have to work around school policies. One more observation that was mentioned by one of the teachers was in reference to Google Classroom and the way in which assignment are displayed since after posting several tasks, students have difficult time in finding them.

Recommendation for Practice

Several recommendations for practices that developed as a result of this study and review of literature could be suggested for teachers and administrators. Outcomes from this qualitative exploratory research study concurred with Rowe’s statement, “Google drive afforded students a platform to develop the processes and skills they needed for the independent exploration of concepts and facts. This critical interaction with information and with each other helped them to move toward autonomous learning, empowering them to control where, what and how they learn” (Rowe, 2012, p. 24).

It is recommended that teachers take time to investigate the different educational apps created by Google and to use the TPACK Model to select the appropriate technology into the lesson based on the content and on the pedagogical approach. Google Apps for Education continues to develop and to improve their educational platform to help both students and teachers facilitate instruction and simplify preparation time.

School administrators could also benefit from the flexibility and the sense of empowerment provided by Google for Education. Professional development for educators continues to be created by educational leaders, so educators are able to “integrate deeper learning in the classroom” (NMC Horizon Report – 2014 K-12 Edition). It is recommended to create professional development for teachers using Google Classroom, where administrators and instructional leaders could post and collect information from teachers. Google Classroom also

78 allows collaboration among teachers in the same department, so all the resources are shared and found in cloud based environment. Although the cost to train every teacher could become an issue for some school districts, professional development could be created using webinars to make trainings more cost effective.

Another practical recommendation is to use Google Classroom and Google Docs to create a class for those students placed in school suspension. By creating this type of online classes, using Google Classroom, all the assignment, copies, and managing will be online, making time preparation more efficient.

According to the NCM Horizon Report for K-12 edition, there is a trend on delivering core content using project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and challenge-based learning

(NMC Horizon Report – 2014 K-12 Edition). Google Apps for Education presented a robust and reliable cloud-based learning environment that promotes and facilitate project-based, inquiry- based, and challenge-based learning. Based on the participants’ responses, the success rate of those types of lessons will be determined by content, pedagogical, and technology knowledge of the teacher proving the lesson.

Recommendation for Future Studies

To further address the impact of using Google Classroom and Google Apps for Education during daily instruction, future researchers could examine the following research studies which will provide different perspectives and will contribute to the wealth of knowledge on educational leadership and technology integration.

1. This qualitative research was originally intended to be an exploratory sequential mixed

method study; however, there were not enough teachers using Google Classroom and

Google Docs to do reliable statistical study. The number of teachers implementing

Google Classroom continues to increase, so one recommendation will be to conducting a

mixed method study using the results from this qualitative research.

2. Another recommendation is to investigate students’ perception when they are using

Google Classroom and Google Docs during daily lessons. The information gathered from

students’ point view will offer teachers the opportunity to determine when Google Apps

for Education become an important technology tool and when other form of technology

integration could be selected for certain topics.

3. Administrators could also benefit using Google Classroom and Google Docs to create

and facilitate professional development, so doing a research study on the teachers’

engagement and collaboration when using Google Classroom a cloud-based platform for

professional development is another recommendation.

4. This study only focused on six secondary educators, yet Google Apps for Education was

designed for all levels of education. A research study focused only on elementary

teachers and comparing the results to the ones obtained from secondary educators could

also add relevant information on this topic.

5. Colleges and universities are using Learning Management Systems (LMS) like

Blackboard and Canvas to communicate to students, post assignment, quizzes and test, as

well as a portal to make announcements. Unfortunately, many LMS are expensive to be

adopted by school districts, so using Google Classroom and Google Docs offer school

districts an interesting alternative. Mentioned in the literature review section, as much as

the popularity of online learning has grown so has its dropout rate (Lee, 2010).

Investigating 1st year college students and their level of adaptation from using Google

Classroom in high school to using Blackboard or Canvas in College will be another

recommended research.

Research Conclusion

This qualitative research began in search of obtaining teachers’ perceptions in the use of

Google Classroom and Google Apps and their impact in students’ engagement due to rapid growth, influence, and adoption of Google in the field of education. Literature review supports the findings gathered from this study. The TPACK Model is supported by the use of Google

Classroom and Google Docs, and innovation is possible when educators guide students’ knowledge based project-based, or inquire-based learning. Learning management systems continues to change as online learning keeps growing, while the leadership role evolves as students and technology transform our education system.

All the advantages and disadvantages gathered from teachers’ perceptions concur that

Google Apps For Education Promotes Engagement, Responsibility, Flexibility in the classroom,

Empowerment thru Creativity and Time efficiency; in other words, GAFE P.E.R.F.E.C.Ts or improves students’ learning.

REFERENCES

Adams, K. (2005). The sources of creativity and innovation. Retrieved May 13, 2010, from

National Center on Education and the Economy: New Commission on the Skills of the

American Workforce website: http://www.fpspi.org/Pdf/InnovCreativity.pdf

Agcaoili, K. (2012). Google apps: An opportunity to collaborate. (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest. UMI:3542364.

Allen, E. & Seaman J. (2014). Grade Change: tracking online education in the United States.

Survey Research Group.

http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf

Ammar, H. S. & Alkhezzi, F. A. (2013). Beyond computer literacy: technology integration and

curriculum transformation. College Student Journal. 47(4), 614-626.

Anders, G. (2012, August 16). Are they learning or cheating? Online teaching’s dilemma.

Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2012/08/16/are-they-

learning-or-cheating-online-teachings-dilemma/

Antonacci, K. (2014, August 22). McAllen school district reflects on 3 years with iPads. The

Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/mcallen-school-district-

reflects-on-years-with-ipads/article_f2dbfd80-2a70-11e4-819f-0017a43b2370.html

Apple - ACOT2. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2016, from

http://ali.apple.com/acot2/program.shtml

Arbab Kash, B., Spaulding, A., Johnson, C. E., & Gamm, L. (2014). Success Factors for

Strategic Change Initiatives: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Administrators'

Perspectives. Journal of Healthcare Management, 59(1), 65-81.

Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in

education: A systematic review of research and applications. Journal of Educational

Technology & Society, 17(4), 133-149.

Baran, E., & Correia, A. (2014). A professional development framework for online teaching.

Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 58(5), 95-101.

doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0791-0.

Baase, S. (2013). A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology

(4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson

Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. San

Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bernard, H.R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative

rd approaches (3 ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

Claro, M., Nussbaum, M., López, X., & Díaz, A. (2013). Introducing 1 to 1 in the classroom: A

large-scale experience in Chile. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3),

315-328.

Computer, A. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching, learning and technology: A

report on 10 Years of ACOT research. Retrieved from http://images.apple.com/

Cox, L. (2014). Constructivism examined in a 1:1 Chromebook/Google applications

collaborative mobile learning program in the upper midwest (Doctoral dissertation,

Northcentral University). Retrieved from ProQuest. UMI: 3643400.

Cropley, A. J. (2008). Creativity in education and learning: a guide for teachers and educators.

Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge Falmer.

Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: are creativity tests worth using?

Roeper Review, 23(2), 72.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record, 95(2),

185-210.

Cuban, L. Kirkpatrick H., and Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high

school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research

Journal, 38(4), 813-834.

Damarin, S., & Bohren, J. (1987). The evolution of the ACOT-Columbus classroom. Retrieved

from http://www.apple.com/nl/images/pdf/acotlibrary/rpt8.pdf

Dessoff, A. (2010). Google and Microsoft go to school. Education Digest, 76(4), 4-7.

Denton, D. W. (2012, July/August). Enhancing instruction through constructivism,

cooperative learning, and cloud computing. Tech Trends, 56(4), 34-41. Retrieved

from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0585-1

Denzin. N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.

K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-28).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Donovan, L., Hartley, K. & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial implementation

of one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 39(3), 263-286.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993) Doing naturalistic inquiry:

A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Fan, K., & Cunchen, T. (2014). The application of augmented reality technology in teaching

education. Journal of Chemical & Pharmaceutical Research, 6(5), 1446-1449.

Ferending, K. A. (2003). Questioning technology: Electronic technologies and educational

reform. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Ferenstein, G. (2010). Why schools are turning to Google apps. Retrieved from

http://mashable.com/2010/04/28/schools-google-apps/#xHI_snbximqg

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.).

Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gebre, E., Saroyan, A. & Bracewell, R. (2014). Students’ engagement in technology rich

classrooms and its relationship to professors’ conceptions of effective teaching. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 83-96. Doi:10.1111/bjet.12001.

Giordano, V. A. (2007). A Professional development model to promote internet integration into

P-12 teachers' practice: A mixed methods study. Computers in the Schools, 24(3/4), 111-

123.

Google Company (n.d.). Our history in depth. Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/about/company/history/

Google Apps for Education (2015). Google apps for education: Common questions. Retrieved

from https://support.google.com/a/answer/139019?hl=en

Google launches Classroom app. (2015, January). eSchool News – Daily Tech News &

Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2015/01/15/google-classroom-

app-237/?

Gorder, L. (2007). Creating classrooms of the future: Connecting classrooms with one-to-one

computing. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 73(4), 19-38.

Harris, L. (2011). Secondary teachers' conceptions of student engagement: Engagement in

learning or in schooling? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 376-386.

Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers' curriculum-based,

technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 43(3), 211-229.

Holeywell, R. (2012). Texas school district pays $20M for iPads. Governing – Education

retrieve on March 12, 2015 from http://www.governing.com/topics/education/gov-

struggling-texas-school-district-buys-ipads.html

Internet World Statistics (2015). Internet usage statistics. Retrieve from

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

ISTE Standards (2015). ISTE Standards – Learning, teaching, and leading in the digital age.

Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards

Johnson, D. (December 2011/January 2012). Stretching your technology dollar. Educational

Leadership, 69(4), 30-33.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H.

(2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media

Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/publications/2013-horizonreport-

k12.

Jones, I. M. (2011, Winter/Spring). Can you see me now? Defining teaching presence in

the online classroom through building a learning community. Journal of Legal

Studies Education, 28(1), 67-116. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1722.2010.01085.x

Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. Retrieve from

http://www.citejournal.org/articles/v9i1general1.pdf

Koller, D. (2012, August 1). Daphne Koller: What we’re learning from online education. [Video

file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6FvJ6jMGHU

Kurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence.

New York, NY: Penguin Putnam Inc.

Kyger, J. (2008). A study of synchronous and asynchronous learning environment in an online

course and their effect on retention rates. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest. UMI:3363962.

Lee, Y. & Choi, J. (2010). A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice

and future research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59, 593-618.

doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9177-y

Lei, J., Conway, P., & Zhao, Y. (2007). The digital pencil: One-to-one computing for

children. London and New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Liang, J. K., Liu, T. C., Wang, H. Y., Chang, B. B., Deng, Y. C., Yang, J. C., & ... Chan, T. W.

(2005). A few design perspectives on one-on-one digital classroom environment. Journal

of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 181-189. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00126.x

LMS Evaluation (2011). Learning Management System (LMS) Evaluation 2011-2012. Retrieved

from http://blogs.butler.edu/lms/files/2011/08/executive-summary.pdf

Marzano, R. J. & Pickering, D. J. (2011). The highly engaged classroom. Colorado: Marzano

Research Laboratory.

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

framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Records, Columbia University

108(6), p. 1017-1054.

Moore, M. & Kearsley G. (2005). Distance education: A system view of online learning. (3rd ed).

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

NMC Horizon Report. (2015) Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-

report-2014-k-12-edition/

NMC Horizon Report – 2015 K-12 Edition (2014) Retrieved from

http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf

NMC Horizon Report – 2014 K-12 Edition (2014) Retrieved from

http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf

Overby, A., & Jones, B. L. (2015). Virtual LEGOs: Incorporating Minecraft into the art

education curriculum. Art Education, 68(1), 21-27.

Overview of Google Docs. (2015). Overview of Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides. Retrieved from

https://support.google.com/docs/answer/49008?hl=en

Pappas, C. (2015). Google classroom: A free learning management system for eLearning.

eLearining Industry. Retrieved from http://elearningindustry.com/google-classroom-a-

free-learning-management-system-for-elearning

Partnership for the 21st Century Skills (2002). Retrieve from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-

framework on April 25th, 2004.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. MCB University Press, 9(5), 1-6.

Project Tomorrow (2013). Making learning mobile 1.0: leveraging mobile devices to transform

teaching and learning in 8th grade classes at Stone Middle School. Results of the project

evaluation study. www.tomorrow.org. Retrieve March 25, 2014 from

http://www.tomorrow.org/publications/MobileDevicesTransformTeaching.html

Rafool, B., Sullivan, E., & Al-Bataneh A. (2012). Integrating technology into the classroom.

International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 8(1), 57-71.

Rahimpour, M. & Zakeri, El, (2011, June). Learners’ performance in doing task with and

without teacher’s presence. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 66-72. doi:

doi:10.5539/elt.v4n2p66

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V., (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and

technology. (3rd. Ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Rooney, T. (Producer). (2011, June 21). PeopleMation: releasing human potential. Video

retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgU8NhQqSVE

Rouse, M. (n.d.). Learning management system (LMS) definition. Retrieved from

http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/learning-management-system

Rowe, M., Bozalek, V., & Frantz, J. (2013). Using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach

to authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 594-606.

Salkind, N. J. (2011). Statistics for people who hate statistics. (4th Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Sauers, N. J, & McLeod, S. (2012). What does the research say about school one-to-one

computing initiatives? UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership

in Education. University of Kentucky. Retrieved March 2, 2014 from

http://www.natickps.org/CASTLEBrief01_LaptopPrograms.pdf

Skillsoft, (2015). Cloud-Based Learning Solutions. Retrieved from

http://www.skillsoft.com/assets/offers/elearning-guide/elearning-guide.pdf

Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S.

(2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The

development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.

Schwahn, C. J., & McGarvey, B. (2012). Inevitable: Mass customized learning: Learning in the

age of empowerment. San Bernadino, CA: Chuck Schwahn & Bea McGarvey.

Shea, P. & Bidjerano, T. (2010, December). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-

efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and

blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721-1731.

doi:0.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017

Shea, P. & Bidjerano, T. (2012). Learning presence as a moderator in the community of

inquiry model. Computers & Education, 59, 316-326. doi:

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.011

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.

Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.

Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 143-150.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Creative thinking in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Educational

Research, 47(3), 325.

Student Engagement (2016, February 18). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform.

Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/student-engagement.

Sung-Bin, C., Chi-Jen, L., Ching, E., Cheng, H. H., Chang, B., Fei-Ching, C., & Tak-Wai, C.

(2009). EduBingo: Developing a content sample for the one-to-one classroom by the

content-first design approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 343-

353.

Tay, L. Y., Sheng, J., Lim, P. C., Nair, S. S., & Lim, S. K. (2013). English language in a one-to-

one computing environment – impact and considerations. Research and Practice in

Technology Enhanced Learning. 8(3), 385-409.

Tetreault, S. G. (2014). Personal-level factors and Google Docs use in Monmouth County

Middle Schools (Doctoral dissertation, The State University of New Jersey). Retrieve

from https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/42352/

Thompson, G. (2014). 1 - TO - 1 + BYOD + PD = SUCCESS. (cover story). The Journal, 41(8),

13-19.

Using Google docs to facilitate collaborative writing in an English language classroom practice.

(2010).

Wahefield, J. (2010, March 19). World wakes up to digital divide. BBC News. Retrieved from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8568681.stm

Walker, A., Recker, M., Ye, L., Robertshaw, M., Sellers, L., & Leary, H. (2012). Comparing

technology-related teacher professional development designs: a multilevel study of

teacher and student impacts. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(3),

421-444. TESL-EJ, 14(3), 1-8.

Walsh, B. E. (2011). Self-audit communicating & learning profiles. Victoria, Canada: Walsh

Seminars Publishing House.

Wang, Y. M., Chen, D-T. V., & Liang, R. Y. H. (2011). Overcoming the dilemma of

teacher presence in student-centered online discussions. Journal of Educational

Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(4), 425-438. Retrieved from

http://www.aace.org/pubs/jemh/

Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-

structured methods. London: SAGE.

Weston, M. E. & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: the naked truth about 1:1 laptop

initiatives and educational change. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and

Assessment, 9(6), 1-26.

Williams, P. D. (2012). Phenomenological investigation of secondary teachers who successfully

integrated instructional technology into the curriculum. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieve

from ProQuest. UMI:3562565.

Wu, H., & Huang, Y. (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-

centered technology-enhanced learning environments. Science Education, 91(5), 727-

749.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

TEACHERS’ INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Please do not participate in this interview if you are under the age of eighteen. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-KINGSVILLE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS. Phone: (361) 593-3344, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs.

1. Please tell me about your background and your teaching experience.

2. Have or have you not seen your students’ benefited by using Google Classroom and Google

Docs? If so, how?

3. Have or have you not, as a teacher, benefited by using Google Classroom and Google Docs?

If so, how?

4. Which feature/s of Google Classroom do you use more often?

5. How do you define students’ engagement?

6. How do you define student’s empowerment?

7. As a classroom teacher, what is the difference between student engagement and student

empowerment?

8. Are Google Classroom and Google Docs tools of engagement and/or empowerment?

9. Based on your experience and observations, does the use of Google Classroom and Google

Docs have an effect on students’ completion of assignments? If so, how?

10. Based on your experience and observations, does the use of Google and Google Docs have

an effect on students’ engagement in the classroom? If so, how?

11. Based on your experience and observations, does the use of Google Classroom and Google

Docs have an effect on students among students collaboration? If so, how?

12. Based on your experience and observations, does the use of Google Classroom and Google

Docs have an effect on your teaching pedagogy? If so, how?

13. Do you perceive a difference as a teacher since you started using Google Classroom? If so,

what type of difference/s?

14. Based on your experience and observations, how do Google Classroom and Google Docs

facilitate instruction?

15. Based on your experience and observations, how do Google Classroom and Google Docs

facilitate student achievement in the subject area you teach?

16. Based on your experience and observations, how does Google Classroom facilitate delivery

of content?

17. Based on your experience and observations, how do Google Classroom and Google Docs

affect student critical thinking?

18. Based on your experience and observations, how do Google Classroom and Google Docs

affect student’s creativity?

19. Based on your experience and observations what are some of the disadvantages or issues that

you have experienced when using Google Classroom and Google Docs?

20. Are there any other comments you would like to add?

APPENDIX B

TAMUK IRB APPROVAL

CIRCLE OR HIGHLIGHT THE APPROPRIATE ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION

Yes No Does your research involve human subjects? If yes, submit to:

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD

Yes No Does your research involve animal subjects? If yes, submit to:

INSTITUTIONAL ANIMAL CARE AND USE COMMITTEE

Yes No Does your research involve recombinant DNA? If yes, submit to:

INSTITUTIONAL BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE

If your research involves more than a single yes, the proposal must be submitted to all the appropriate committees.

All research projects should be submitted to the appropriate compliance committee through the Office of Research & Sponsored Programs

Research Compliance Team Office of Research & Sponsored Programs Texas A&M University – Kingsville 700 University Blvd. MSC 201 Kingsville, Texas 78363 Phone: 361-593-2677 Fax: 361-593-3409 [email protected]

100

FORM A

DATE: January 22, 2016 LOG NO:

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-KINGSVILLE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF INVESTIGATION INVOLVING THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS

PLEASE TYPE

1. Principal Investigator’s Name: Demian Morquin College & Department: TAMUK, Educational Leadership Doctoral Program, 700 University Blvd., Kingsville, TX 78363-8202 Campus Phone No.: 361-593-2111 Home/Cell No.: 956-496-4966 Email: [email protected] Associates:

2. If you are a student, provide the following: Yes Faculty sponsor: Dr. Linda Challoo Faculty Email: [email protected] Ext.: 361-593-4362

Is this your graduating semester? Yes X No ___ Is this your thesis or dissertation research? Yes X No What is your academic status? Doctoral X Masters Undergraduate

3. Title of research project: Teachers’ Perceptions using Google Classroom and Google Docs and their Impact on Student Engagement

4. Has this project previously been considered by the IRB? Yes No X

5. Is this research connected to a grant proposal for external funding being submitted? Yes NoX

If you answered “yes” above, you must submit one complete copy of that grant proposal as soon as it is available and compete the following: a. Is notification of Human Subjects approval required? Yes No b. Is this a renewal application? Yes No c. Sponsor’s name and identification number: d. Total proposal period: to

101

6. Description of human subjects: Number: 6 Age: Adults over 21 Sex: F X M X

7. Does your project qualify for exempt status? See www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance, CFR 45 Part 46.101(b)

Yes __ No X

If “yes”, indicate the appropriate categories suggesting less than full IRB review. Include with your application all copies of all pertinent attachments supporting this argument for exempt review. If external funding is sought, the full grant proposal must be included with the IRB application.

8. Does your project fall under one of the categories eligible for expedited review? See www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance, CFR 45 Part 46.110

Yes X No

If “yes”, indicate the appropriate categories suggesting less than full IRB review. Include with your application all copies of all pertinent attachments supporting this argument for expedited review. If external funding is sought, the full grant proposal must be included with the IRB application.

Research on individual or group behavior, or characteristics of individuals, such as studies of perception, cognition, game theory, or test development, where the investigator does not manipulate subjects’ behavior and the research will not involve stress to subjects

9. I have included copies of all pertinent attachments including, but not limited to: questionnaire instruments, informed consent(s), letters of approval from cooperating institutions, IRB training certificates, and a copy of the full grant proposal if applicable, etc. Yes X No . (If yes, provide a list of attachments; if no, explain):

Attachment 1: Letter of research participation Attachment 2: Informed consent form Attachment 3: Teacher’s Questionnaire Attachment 4: CITI Certificates for researcher and faculty sponsor

102

10. Describe the source(s) of subjects and the selection criteria. Specifically, where did you obtain the names of potential subjects (i.e. agency files, hospital records, local organizations, etc.)? Where and how will you contact them?

The researcher’s position as a Learning Resources Integration Specialist at Region One Educational Service Center allows him to interact with teachers and administration from different school districts within the Region. Part of the researcher’s job responsibilities is training teachers from all grade levels as well as school district administrators in topics such as classroom technology integration, innovation and creativity in the classroom, and data driven instruction. After training sessions on Google Apps for Education (GAFE), the researcher will inform the participants about a study currently in process on Google Classroom and GAFE. The researcher will request permission to contact them via email or phone to participate in the study by sharing their experience and perception in using Google Classroom and GAFE as an educational learning environment.

Considering that Google Classroom is an educational platform that has been launched in August 2014, the researcher will only contact those teachers that have been using Google Classroom for at least 6 months. After participants’ acceptance to be part of this study, an informed consent letter, along with a letter explaining the purpose of the research study will be given to the participants / interviewees.

There will be a total of six informants for this study. Subjects will include professional educators from secondary schools. Due to the nature of this study, the researcher will use purposive sampling which allow him to obtain information relevant to the research. “Purposive sampling procedure is governed by emerging insights about what is relevant to the study and purposively seeks both typical and the divergent data that these insights suggest” (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993, p. 33). Prolonged engagement is an effective technique that support credibility. Erlandson stated that “Prolonged engagement also serves to build trust and develop a rapport with respondents” (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993, p. 134). Measures to ensure trustworthiness and credibility will be implemented including strategies such as member checking, data theming, and triangulation.

11. Brief description of proposed research: include major hypotheses and research design.

The research design for this qualitative study is naturalistic inquiry. The qualitative research for this study was selected due to the lack of research in a specific educational learning tool. Google Classroom in combination with Google Docs as a cloud-based learning environment is rapidly emerging and being adopted by school districts and educational institutions.

103

The number of school districts and the adoption of Google Apps for Education (GAFE) in the K-12 domain continue to increase. In September 2014, Google Apps for Education launched another app called Google Classroom. After 6 months of launching Google Classroom, students and teachers have turned in more than 30 million assignments (Google launches, 2015). School districts, particularly in South Texas, continue to adopt GAFE as a cloud-based platform as their path to transition into the 21st Century Learning skills necessary for the students. The lack of enough research about GAFE and the Google Classroom as a pseudo-learning management system has triggered the need to further investigate how Google Apps for Education in conjunction with Google Classroom is affecting student learning and teacher instruction in school districts of South Texas.

From the constructivist perspective, the participants’ point of view provides substantial information about the research being studied. The questions should be broad and general allowing the participants the opportunity to give meaning to a situation and to generate father discussion and interactions (Creswell, 2003). During this exploratory study, the researcher will interview teachers from Secondary School. A collective total of 6 teachers’ interviews will provide qualitative data to analyze and determine common themes among their responses. By interviewing participants, the researcher will converse with a purpose so feelings, claims, or concerns associated with the dialogue open the opportunity to new meanings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Each interview will consist of 20 questions focused on specific topics, such as self- description as an educator, knowledge about Google Apps for Education, familiarity with Google Classroom and Google Docs, awareness about cloud-based learning environment, positive and/or negative impact on the use of Google Classroom as a learning environment, and personal as well as professional reflection about cloud-based learning environment.

12. Procedures: Provide a step-by-step description of each procedure, including the frequency, duration and location of each procedure. Describe procedures for the storage and protection of data.

After approval of the IRB, the researcher will proceed as follows:

Step 1 – Contact / Invitation: Selected teachers will be contacted by email and invited to participate on this study. The email will provide the description of the research and will request permission to contact them again to arrange the location for the interview if they agree to participate. Step 2 - Interviews’ location:

104

The researcher will determine the location where the interview will take place based on the interviewee recommendation. The interviewer will accommodate the interview in a place where the interviewee will feel comfortable and relax. Step 3 – Letter of consent: Upon participation and location agreement, the researcher will provide the participant a letter of consent explaining in detail the research study. The participant will be required to sign the consent letter before proceeding with the interview process. Step 4 - Time-length interviews: The interviews are aimed to be completed between 30 and 60 minutes. The interviewer will record and take notes during the interview process. In addition, answer clarification will be requested to confirm that the information received was accurate. Step 5 - Semi-structures interviews process: The interview will consist of 20 questions focused on the teacher’s perception on how the use of Google Docs and Google Classroom has or not an effect on students’ engagement in terms of creativity, collaboration, assignment completion, and communication among others. The semi- structure interviews will consist of open ended questions allowing participants to talk freely about the Google Docs and Google Classroom and their experience during teaching. Step 6 – Preservation of data anonymity and security: The research will explain and assure the interviewee that all the collected data will remain anonymous and secured. The collected and recorded data will be secured in password protected flash-drive that will be kept in a locked drawer. Step 7 – Transcription and analysis of data: The collected data will be transcribed and analyzed. The gather information will be use as part of the research study. Pseudo names will be given to participants to preserve their anonymity. Step 8 – Destruction of collected data: After dissertation acceptance all recordings will deleted and notes will be shredded.

13. Informed consent: Describe the consent process and attach all consent documents.

Participants will be contacted by email and phone to secure their participation. Once, they agree to participate, they will complete a consent form will be used prior to interviews. Forms will be collected and categorized by the principal researcher.

105

14. Benefits: Describe the anticipated benefits to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result.

The findings of this study may assist educators, administrators, and policymakers on the advantages and disadvantages in using Google Classroom in combination with Google Docs as a cloud-based learning environment and its impact on student engagement. The influence of this research may help educators, administrators, and policymakers assess the best way to implement GAFE as cloud-based learning environment so student, teachers, administrators, and even parents could fully benefit from its use.

15. Risks: Describe the risks involved with these procedures (physical, psychological and/or social) and the precautions you have taken to minimize these risks.

The participants’ risks for this research study are not greater than those encountered in daily activities.

16. Following IRB approval, this proposal will be active for one calendar year. Addition to or changes in procedures involving human subjects as well as any problems connected with the use of human subjects once the project has begun must be brought to the attention of the IRB. I agree to provide whatever surveillance is necessary to ensure that the rights and welfare of the human subjects are properly protected. I understand that I cannot initiate any contact with human subjects before I have received approval and/or complied with all contingencies made in connection with that approval. Please sign before submitting this form.

*By signing this form in hardcopy or electronically, the PI assures compliance with all rules and policies of the IRB*

Demian Morquin ______December 7, 2015 Print Name Signature of Primary Investigator Date

______Print Name Signature of Co-PI Date

17. Approval by Faculty Sponsor (required for all students): I affirm the accuracy of this application, and I accept the responsibility for the conduct of this research and the supervision of human subjects as required by law.

Dr. Linda Challoo ______December 7, 2015 Print Name Signature of Faculty Advisor/Sponsor Date

106

18. Approval by Department Chair/Dean/Director (Only required for FULL BOARD reviews): I confirm the accuracy of the information stated in this application. I am familiar with, and approve of the procedures that involve research on human subjects.

Name of College/Department:

______Print Name Signature of Chairperson of Department Date

______Print Name Signature of Dean of College Date

107

APPENDIX C

CONSENT FORM

108

Project Title:

You are invited to take part in a research study being conducted by Demian Morquin, a researcher from Texas A&M University – Kingsville. The information in this form is provided to help you decide whether or not to take part. If you decide to take part in the study, you will be asked to sign this consent form. If you decide you do not want to participate, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits you normally would have.

Why Is This Study Being Done? The purpose of this study is to study teachers’ perceptions using Google Classroom and Google Docs and their impact on students’ engagement.

Why Am I Being Asked To Be In This Study? You are being asked to be in this study because you are a secondary teacher that has been using Google Classroom and Google Docs in your daily instruction for at least six months.

How Many People Will Be Asked To Be In This Study? Six people (participants) will be invited to participate in this study locally. The researcher will determine the location where the interview will take place based on the interviewee recommendation. The interviewer will accommodate the interview in a place where the interviewee will feel comfortable and relax.

What Are the Alternatives to being in this study? The alternative to being in the study is not to participate. No other activity will be given if you choose not to participate.

What Will I Be Asked To Do In This Study? You will be asked to be interviewed and a set of 20 questions will be provided to you as a guidance for the interview. Your participation in this study will last up to 60 minutes and includes only one meeting.

Will Photos, Video or Audio Recordings Be Made Of Me during the Study? If video/audio recordings or photographs will not be taken in the study, remove this section completely.

Language for Optional recordings: The researcher will make an audio recording during the study so that collected information will be transcribed for the purpose of the study only if you give your permission to do so. Indicate your decision below by initialing in the space provided.

______I give my permission for audio recordings to be made of me during my participation in this research study.

______I do not give my permission for audio recordings to be made of me during my participation in this research study.

109

Are There Any Risks To Me? The things that you will be doing are no more/greater than risks than you would come across in everyday life. You do not have to answer anything you do not want to. Are There Any Benefits To Me? There are no direct benefits to you by being in this study.

Will There Be Any Costs To Me? Aside from your time, there are no costs for taking part in the study.

Will I Be Paid To Be In This Study? You will not be paid for being in this study.

Will Information From This Study Be Kept Private? The records of this study will be kept private. No identifiers linking you to this study will be included in any sort of report that might be published. Research records will be stored securely and only Demian Morquin will have access to the records.

Information about you will be stored in password protected flash-drive that will be locked file cabinet; computer files protected with a password. This consent form will be filed securely in an official area.

People who have access to your information include the Principal Investigator and Representatives of regulatory agencies such as the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP).

Information about you and related to this study will be kept confidential to the extent permitted or required by law.

Who may I Contact for More Information? You may contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Linda Challoo, Associate Professor and the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, to tell her about a concern or complaint about this research at 361-593-4362 or [email protected].

For questions about your rights as a research participant, to provide input regarding research, or if you have questions, complaints, or concerns about the research, you may call the Texas A&M University- Kingsville Institutional Review Board at the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs by phone at 361- 593-2677, or by email at [email protected].

What if I Change My Mind About Participating? This research is voluntary and you have the choice whether or not to be in this research study. You may decide to not begin or to stop participating at any time. If you choose not to be in this study or stop being in the study, there will be no effect on your student status, medical care, employment, evaluation, relationship with Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

110

STATEMENT OF CONSENT I agree to be in this study and know that I am not giving up any legal rights by signing this form. The procedures, risks, and benefits have been explained to me, and my questions have been answered. I know that new information about this research study will be provided to me as it becomes available and that the researcher will tell me if I must be removed from the study. I can ask more questions if I want. A copy of this entire consent form will be given to me.

______Participant’s Signature Date

______Printed Name Date

INVESTIGATOR'S AFFIDAVIT: Either I have or my agent has carefully explained to the participant the nature of the above project. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the person who signed this consent form was informed of the nature, demands, benefits, and risks involved in his/her participation.

______Signature of Presenter Date

______Printed Name Date

THIS RESEARCH PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY — KINGSVILLE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS. FOR QUESTIONS, COMPLAINTS, OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESEARCH, YOU MAY CONTACT THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND SPONSORED PROGRAMS BY PHONE AT 361-593-2677, OR BY EMAIL AT [email protected]

111

APPENDIX D

NIH CERTIFICATE

112

The National Institutes of Health Certification

113

VITA

Mr. Demian Morquin

3420 N. 19 ½ McAllen, TX 78501

EDUCATION:

Master of Science, Manufacturing Engineering May 2001

University of Texas Pan American, Edinburg, Texas 78539

Master Thesis - Automated Separation of Clods from Agricultural Produce Using

Mechanical Separator with Integrated Neural Network.

Bachelor of Science, Computer Science December 1993

University of Texas Pan American, Edinburg, Texas 78539

PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS:

Learning Resource Integration Specialist, Curriculum & Instruction Department

Region One, Education Service Center (February, 2015 – Present)

Campus Technology Integration, Technology Department

Mission Consolidated School District (August, 2005 – January, 2015)

Math Teacher & Boys Head Soccer Coach, Math & Athletic Department

McAllen Independent School District (August 2000 – July, 2005)

Sharyland Independent School District (August 1995 – July, 2000)

PUBLICATIONS:

Demian Morquin, Mounir Ben Ghalia, Subhash Bose, An integrated neural network-

based vision system for automated separation of clods from agricultural

produce. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 16(1), 45-55 (2003).

Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952197603000290

114