How Digital Native Elementary Teachers Use Information Communication Technology to Teach Students

A CASE STUDY: HOW DIGITAL NATIVE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS USE INFORMATION COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY TO TEACH STUDENTS

JAN K. WILLIAMS, B.S., M.Ed.

A DISSERTATION

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

Dr. Trenia Walker, Chair of Committee

Dr. Barbara Morgan-Fleming

Dr. Reese Todd

Dr. Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School

August 2015

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank God every day for the strength and stamina to work through this project and endure to the end. I know it was nothing I have done but God working in me.

I am grateful for the academic and professional assistance provided by Dr. Trenia

Walker and committee members, Dr. Morgan-Fleming and Dr. Todd. You have made many positive contributions to Cohort I. I have personally benefitted from your commitment and care throughout the last three years of this journey. Although Dr. Price was not on my committee, I want to say special thanks. She has been faithful to our cohort from the very start and I will always appreciate her efforts to train us to do quality qualitative research. She has made the journey to this degree a positive experience by everything she has done to support and encourage us.

I am most grateful to Dr. Todd, who saved my sanity through the last part of completing my dissertation. Her efforts and consultation made a huge difference in final product. I could not have finished without her taking me under her wing and showing me such kindness.

To my husband and best friend, John, I thank you for your enduring love, and encouragement for all the years I have chased after this degree. I may not have said it daily, but I have so much appreciated the dinners, help with the housework, and encouragement. You truly have shown your love and support during the last four years.

Lastly, I would like to thank our children, who have been so supportive as I worked on the completion of this degree. I have tried to lead the way for you to work on your own pursuits with endurance and honest effort. It will take you far if you adopt this work ethic in everything you do and it is amazing what magic can happen.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... v LIST OF TABLES ...... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii CHAPTER I ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Background ...... 3 Purpose of the Study ...... 7 Research Questions ...... 7 Significance of the Study ...... 8 Theoretical Framework ...... 9 Definition of Terms ...... 15 Summary ...... 16 CHAPTER II ...... 18 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 18 CHAPTER III ...... 40 METHODOLOGY ...... 40 Purpose of the study ...... 40 Research Questions ...... 40 Overview of Methods ...... 41 Data Sources ...... 43 Data Collection ...... 45 Data Analysis ...... 48 Trustworthiness ...... 51 Context of the Researcher ...... 52 Limitations of the Study ...... 53 Context of the Study ...... 54 CHAPTER IV ...... 56 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION OF THE DATA ...... 56 Overview of Themes ...... 57 Teacher’s Stories as Cases ...... 60 Summary ...... 90 CHAPTER V ...... 93 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 93 Themes for Analysis ...... 94 Confidence and Proficiency ...... 94 Use of ICT ...... 94 Teacher Preparation ...... 95

iii

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Digital Dissonance Between DN Teacher and DN Student ...... 95 Digital Dissonance Between DN Teacher and District ...... 96 Implications of the Study ...... 101 Recommendations ...... 104 Future Research ...... 107 Conclusion ...... 108 References ...... 109 APPENDIX A: IRB EXEMPTION ...... 124 APPENDIX B: IRB PROPOSAL ...... 125 APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONS ...... 134 APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE TEACHERS ...... 136 APPENDIX D: CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THE TEACHER ...... 138 APPENDIX E: TIAI ...... 139

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

ABSTRACT

Using descriptive case study design, the researcher made an inventory of classroom technology, conducted interviews with each of the participants, and analyzed classroom documents and district policies. The findings suggest that even Digital Native teachers face challenges in using newer Web 2.0 technologies in designing instruction for their students. They experience a digital dissonance between their personal and professional use of technology under standard district policies. Empowering Digital Native teachers to integrate their knowledge of content and pedagogy with technology skills offers a valuable resource for resolving the gap between information communication technology and curriculum in today’s schools.

Keywords: Information and Communication Technology, teacher use, student at-home use, digital media

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

LIST OF TABLES

3-1 Audit Trail Codes

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Digital Dissonance

vii

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Technology has changed the way we work, teach, and live. The support for

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education has opened many doors for educators to teach students in a new way. Education staff, including students, has adopted the use of email and texting in addition to other forms of ICT and they use it often for a variety of reasons. They also use electronic bulletin boards and class web pages to communicate assignments and events to students and parents (Dunleavy,

Dextert & Heinecket, 2007). They indicated that they were very comfortable using email and the Internet. In contrast, Braak, Tondeur, and Valcke (2004) found that some teachers did not use education related discussion lists or newsgroups, and did not keep contact with pupils after school hours or give homework to be submitted on the computer.

According to the Golsan (2014) report, Texas public school children are more experienced in using ICT on a daily basis than previous generations. Children are using the Internet as a virtual tutor, textbook, guidance counselor, notebook, and study group according to information gathered by the Pew Project (Levin & Arafeh, 2002). Students have benefitted from the networked technologies that have enabled them to create virtual communities and communicate inside and outside of the classroom (Dunleavy, Dextert,

& Heinecket, 2007). Many of these students have been online for five or six years already are technologically literate, and maintain multiple email addresses and instant messaging (IM) identities. While online, they frequently are multitasking: conducting research for a paper, printing an online study guide for a book they are reading, downloading music, instant messaging simultaneously with dozens of friends, emailing

1 Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 other friends, and preparing a PowerPoint presentation for class the next day (Furlong &

Davies, 2012). While they may not be online hours every day, these students rely heavily on the Internet for school and their social lives (Levin & Arafeh, 2002; Lei, Khaddage, and Knezek, 2013).

Some teachers argue the kids know more about technology than they do (Golsan,

2014). So, putting students in a four-walled room with pencils and paper is like putting them in a time capsule and transporting them back into the past. As students are more technology savvy, it becomes essential for teachers to integrate ICT into the classroom, because “schools cannot lag behind and broaden the gap between life inside and outside of school” (Serhan, 2009). When technology is properly implemented, teachers and administrators are seeing an increase in participation, an excitement for learning, and a more successful retention of knowledge (Golsan, 2014).

The overall view of business, parents and community leaders is that, through technology, students will be prepared for a highly technological future by the changes in the way teachers teach and communicate today (Wilson, 2003). Teachers must not only know more about the ICT that is available but also understand how to incorporate it into their lessons because school age children are very aware of digital media and use it at home to participate in many virtual activities. Unfortunately, many new and pre-service teachers find themselves teaching between the two worlds of the ballpoint pen and the computer mouse (Fluck & Dowden, 2011).

Information and Communication Technology

People in daily life use information and communication technology when they use the computer and Internet to communicate by email, play games or find something they are looking to purchase. Technically, it is a branch of engineering that enables

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 networks and computers to get, transmit and store information. It also involves computer software, information systems, programming languages, and computer hardware. Examples of information technology are telephones and fax machines, cellular phones, computer search algorithms, computer local area networks (LAN) using

Ethernet, and mass storage devices such as disk drives and flash-memory cards (Zhao,

2009).

Background

The need to develop and use creative approaches to educational practices and the inclusion of digital technologies is recognized as necessary in facing the 21st century challenges (O’Mara & Laidlaw, 2011). The role of ICT in education has evolved over the better part of the last twenty years. In the state, students starting in kindergarten must show mastery of the state Technology Applications Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and prove that they are able to solve problems, communicate and find information using technology.

A longitudinal study was done in 1999 for the Texas Education Agency to assess the performance in Grade 3 based on instructional practices, classroom materials and computer use in Grades 1 and 3 (TEA, 1999). The multi-year study (Texas Center for

Educational Research for the Texas Education Agency) examined the effects of campus technology immersion on student learning and teacher proficiency in Texas public schools and showed teachers’ technology proficiency improved as well as their use of technology for student learning. Since then the Texas Education Agency has been involved in a program called the Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) to encourage an environment where teachers and students use technology every day as a natural tool to engage students and support learning. The immersion pilot started in 2003 by the U.S.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Department of Education was called Evaluating a State Education Technology Program

(ESETP). Grants funded the TIP Evaluation called eTxTIP (Evaluating the Texas

Technology Immersion Program). Teachers’ perceptions became more positive towards innovative technology integration, learner-centered goals and experiential learning.

Students involved in the immersion project became more proficient in computer skills as well as interaction with their peers in small-group activities. Finally, the schools involved in the project were thought of as being innovative and had more collaborative interactions with colleagues.

Teachers are required to use computer programs for administrative duties such as communication, attendance, record keeping, and grading. Hung, Lee, and Lim (2012) refer to formal learning as the school curriculum that is structured in its content, has extrinsic motivation and features strict assessments. According to Eshach (2007), formal learning environment refers to the learning that takes place in school and is structured in its curriculum, learning activities and assessment. It has been characterized by location and face-to-face interactions (Hung et al. 2012). Formal learning in schools has developed with its own body of knowledge, which is, found in textbooks and delivered by the teacher. In other words, the teacher imparts the knowledge explicitly through direct instruction (Nasir & Hand, 2008).

As schools have been mandated to increase integration of ICT, students have been openly learning to use digital devices such as iPads, iPods, tablets, and touch screen technologies freely at home (O’Mara & Laidlaw, 2011). Common Sense Media (2012) found that children between the ages of 8 and 18 are spending more than seven and a half hours a day using media for fun, which could be watching TV, listening to music, playing video games, or using social networking sites. A follow-up survey done in 2013

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 by Common Sense Media found that there was an increase of children’s media use from two years prior and that children zero to eight were using mobile media devices such as smart phones and tablets more. The amount of time using devices had also increased according to the survey, as well as using mobile apps for educational games, games for fun, or creative games for drawing, making music, or doing things with photos

(Common Sense Media, 2013). They have learned to access Google, YouTube and other websites that interest them and are able in some cases to teach older family members about games and encourage them to use digital media (Burke & Marsh, 2013).

Parents and children have become increasingly engaged with digital technologies.

Parents give iPhones to young children to calm them in restaurants or doctors’ offices with games, music or movies. Children are following their own interest and creating, designing and directing their own learning (O’Mara & Laidlaw, 2011).

The informal learning environment may be described as places where learning takes place, but primarily outside of school (Callanan, Cervantes & Loomis, 2011). In addition to the learning setting, informal learning is self-directed, intentional, and responds to personal interests. It is a non-assessment-driven and non-qualification- oriented endeavor (Lai et al., 2013). Laurillard (2009) maintains that the learner is the center of the learning and:

There is no teacher, no defined curriculum topic or concept, and no external assessment. The informal learner selects their own ‘teacher’, who may be a peer, or may not be a person; they define their own ‘curriculum’, as what they are interested in learning about; and they choose whether to submit to ‘assessment’ by others. (p. 12)

Another way to look at informal learning is to see it as a product of leisure activities that happens accidentally and spontaneously, and is unpredictable (Sefton-

Green, 2004; Stevenson, 2011).

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Because of the increased availability of ICT in the home, students have access to a wider range of learning resources, strategies and skills (Sefton-Green, 2004).

In addition to the formal and informal learning environment, Marc Prensky

(2001a) notes the technology orientation of the teachers and students as a factor in using

ICT. He describes people who were born before 1960 as Digital Immigrants (DI). They had life experiences without technology and had not grown up understanding and using the language of technology from an early age. Prensky (2001a) explains the significance of the problem in this way, “DI instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.” DI teachers have learned to adapt to the rapidly changing technological world in which they work and live but always retain their learning before the existence of technology. Prensky called this their “accent” that is seen in their lack of trust in technology. They may print out emails and documents instead of reading and editing them online, physically call someone to “see if they got my email,” or ask someone to come into the office to show them a website instead of sending the person the URL.

People born in the later part of the1960s have spent their whole lives around technology. It has included many uses and types of technology, including ICT and digital media. They have learned what Prensky called the language of computers and have spent their lives surrounded by the use of computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age

(Prensky, 2001a). Students are “native speakers” of this language involving technology.

When Prensky first wrote about the Digital Natives (DN), they had (as college grads) spent 5000 hours reading and over 10,000 hours playing video games and 20,000

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 watching TV. It is clear to say that all forms of technology are a big part of the Digital

Natives life. Today it is no different and students think and process information differently as a result of the experience they have with technology.

In summary, all types of technology are on the rise in all environments. School districts are mandated to provide, implement and use a variety of technology in their schools to prepare students to meet the needs of the 21st century. While schools are trying to figure out how to do this, students are using information and communication technology at home at an increasing rate with the availability of many types of media that parents provide. Digital Immigrants are quickly being replaced by Digital Natives as teachers in classrooms to teach Digital Native students (Ionita & Asan, 2013).

Purpose of the Study

This study was designed to gather information from the DN teacher’s perspective and determine their perspectives on their use of information communication technology, the time and effectiveness of using technology in their classroom, and the changes they see in their roles and teaching as a result of using ICT. The study also wants to know if

DN teachers are aware of their students’ use of and experience with digital technology.

In other words, does the experience of the current DN generation of students that have grown up with technology impact DN’s teachers’ instruction in the classroom?

Research Questions

This study will examine the understanding and perceptions that DN teachers have in regard to the knowledge of and expertise their students have in informal settings such as the home. Teachers have available many forms of ICT to use, such as email, texting, electronic-bulletin boards and class web pages. This study will discover the types of

ICT younger teachers are using and if they feel confident and comfortable using them as

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 well as how it has an impact on classroom instruction. Teachers’ confidence and proficiency as well as the challenges of using ICT are important to know because of the impact they have on their ability to teach and communicate effectively. Three research questions guide this study:

1. How proficient and confident do DN teachers aged 20 years to 34 years old feel

about using ICT in and out of the classroom for varied activities?

2. What types of ICT do DN teachers 20 years old to 34 years old use to teach the

tech savvy students in today’s classrooms?

3. How were the DN teachers prepared to use ICT? What type of college program

did they attend (regular or ACP) and does it make a difference?

Significance of the Study

Teachers are faced with increased demands to use ICT in their classrooms. To be effective teachers, they need to know what works for their DN students so that they can streamline the use of it in their classrooms. It is hoped that teachers will better understand their role as they face the challenges of frequently changing ICT, using it appropriately in their classrooms and gaining the most benefit from implementing it. It may be that digital technologies are the starting point for teachers to understand and connect with children’s out-of-school learning (Grant, 2011). Gaining information about how students are using digital technologies at home will give teachers insight for designing learning experiences at school and being able to “draw on [students’] home and community funds of knowledge, including their participation in digitally mediated activities” (Grant, 2011).

Administrators will also benefit from knowing the difficulties and triumphs that teachers have in regard to the use of communication technology in their work. As they

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 provide leadership and guidance, principals must know what teachers are doing in order to provide the encouragement their teachers need, to understand the vision for the technology in their school and to know the specific guidelines in order to provide the resources (Hayes, 2006). Ultimately, they are responsible for the implementation and evaluation of technology in their schools and their attitude toward using technology influences teachers positively or negatively depending on their own interest (Hinson,

2005).

Theoretical Framework

The digital era has changed education including the role of the teacher and the students they teach. Marc Prensky has been talking and writing about these changes as a result of the advances in technology and the way that information is processed. He notes that students are not the same as a result of the advances in technology and are no longer the people that our educational system was designed to teach” (Prensky, 2001a). The differences go far deeper than most educators realize and Prensky asserts that students’ brains have physically changed as a result of the way they have grown up. Their brain structures may be different because of the digital media that constantly surrounds them.

People born during or after the latter 1960’s, who grew up during the general introduction of digital technology and have an understanding of how it works, are those

Prensky (2001) called “native speakers” of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet. These people have been called “born digital” by Spear (2001) and Prensky (2001a) has also named this group Digital Natives (DN). This group has a natural aptitude for using networked technologies, processing new and exciting skills, such as multitasking, and holding sophisticated knowledge and information literacy because of the contemporary web culture in which they live (Oriji, Abraham and Efebo,

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Itonye, 2013). Today’s students from kindergarten to college are the first generation to grow up with this new technology. They have spent their whole lives surrounded by technology toys and tools and are “enthusiastic technology users” according to Herring

(2008). They prefer to hypertext and function best when networked. They thrive on frequent gratification and rewards (Vanslyke, 2003).

In contrast to the Digital Natives (DN) are the people born before the existence of digital technology who have adopted it later in life. Prensky has given them the name

Digital Immigrants (DI) because they are learning a new language that is foreign to them.

They can become fluent in the language, however, they still maintain an accent that distinguishes them from the native speakers of the digital language (Kuehn, 2012). The biggest problem is digital immigrant instructors who speak outdated language (of the pre-digital age) andare struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language (Prensky, 2001a). Ionita and Asan (2013) discuss another group who are older and have little or no experience with the use of digital technology. This group is named the Digital Outsiders (DO) and Ionita and Asan assert that Digital Natives and the DO’s will have difficulty communicating from the very first because they belong to different worlds.

In addition to speaking a different language, the DN’s and DI’s also have grown up in different cultures and think differently about things. Experiences that people undergo from the culture that is around them impacts how they think. These changes do not happen overnight but, as with students that play video games several hours a day, five days a week, the brain is adjusting to the speed and interactivity just like the boomers brains were programmed to television (Prensky, 2001b).

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

The technology skills of the DN’s do not impress the DI’s, who have learned to teach slowly, step-by-step, one thing at a time, individually, and above all, seriously

(Oriji et al. 2013). The DI’s find it hard to understand multitasking students who can learn while watching TV, listening to music, or emailing because the DIs focus on one task at a time and seem to believe learning should not be fun (Prensky, 2001).

Not everyone has agreed with Prensky’s ideas. Some have said that there is no empirical evidence showing that there is a difference in students of the past and present

(Oriji et al. 2013). Others have disagreed concerning the multitasking abilities of today’s DN’s. Opponents (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin , 2008 and Jones and Czerniecz,

2002) refuted the idea the DN’s multitask effectively. Others have disagreed with

Prensky’s idea of age being the dividing line between the DN’s and DI’s. Kuehn (2012) wrote that it was wrong to view the “immigrant educators” as unable to adjust to using new technology.

The ways that today’s students have developed technologically differently from earlier generations have caused a generational divide between the student and the teacher.

Today, there is a “digital dissonance” described by Clark et al. (2009) and Lai et al.

(2013) between the informal settings where people use ICT and the schools that do not agree with the ways these technologies are used.

Prensky (2001a & 2001b) discussed digital dissonance between Digital Native students and their Digital Immigrant teachers. The first generations of digital natives called “K through college” have entered the workforce and many are teachers in today’s classrooms (Lei, 2009). They are different, however, from the second generation DN students who have grown up immersed in the world of technology. DN students have had access informally to many types of ICT and use them with skill. Digital dissonance

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 is a term used to describe the tension around learners’ use of particular technologies, such as Web 2.0 tools and mobile phones in formal educational contexts (Clark, Logan,

Luckin, Mee & Oliver, 2008). Young people’s use of Web 2.0 technologies involves their everyday participation in sites such as My Space and Facebook mainly for communication and entertainment (Downes & Bishop, 2012). These competencies have not yet made it to the school classrooms that the DN students attend.

Digital dissonance is not as prevalent today between Digital Native teachers and

Digital Immigrant teachers because many of the immigrants have or will be retiring soon

(Ionita & Asan, 2013). At present, the digital dissonance tends to exist between the first generation DN teachers and the second-generation DN students that they are teaching.

Fluck and Dowden (2011) described the DN teachers as the “cusp generation” and predicted tensions inherent between current classroom practice and the rapid emergence of digital technologies in schools. DN teachers are caught between the worlds of teaching the 20th century curriculum and teaching skills that are needed in the 21st century (Prensky, 2014). Is our current education system working for the students of tomorrow?

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Figure 1. Digital Dissonance

Digital Dissonance

1st Generation 2nd Generation DN Teacher DN Students

Informal Teaching the Technology Formal Curriculum Experience

Teachers today are considered Digital Natives first of all by being born later than

1980 (Prensky, 2001a & 2001b) and have a considerable amount of time and experience using technology (Tapscott, 1998). Tapscott (2009) named this generation the “Net

Generation” because of their familiarity with ICT. They are described as being immersed in technology. This generation encompasses the teachers of this case study.

But, as the data was collected in this case study, an additional difference between the DN

Teachers and the DN students they are teaching became evident as described by Lei

(2009).

Students of the second generation DN’s are much more tech savvy than Digital

Natives born in the 1980’s and 90’s. These students really do not remember a time without technology being a big part of their home and school life.

Palfrey and Gasser (2008) and Lai, Khaddage, & Knezek (2013), among others, have written about the ways students are learning differently at school in addition to their informal learning at home. Students are processing information differently

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

(Prensky, 2001a &2001b; 2012). They rarely will go to newspapers or magazines but will gather news from online sources. They Google search when researching something or go to Wikipedia.

They are learning in a different way. Teachers and parents are concerned that students are not learning because it is not the traditional way students have been taught in the past. Other concerns center around students’ learning from less reliable sources and that understanding is limited to headlines. While most parents agree with the use of technology in teaching their children at school, some disagree and do not want them to have a device at school or to play games. Students use sophisticated ICT devices and use them in creative ways.

Everett Rogers’ (1983) “diffusion of innovations theory” has been influential to my understanding of this topic of ICT and computer use. This theory assumes that the change of behavior within a community is related to the way a new idea is introduced and becomes accepted (Rogers, Medina, River, & Wiley, 2005). Following this theory, a new idea, in this context computer use, gains popularity among members of a community by first hearing about it, then forming an opinion about it, deciding to adopt it, implementing it and finally accepting it as part of the community.

ICT has followed much the same path of integration into the educational community. The lone computer was introduced into the classroom and then followed by an entire classroom of students armed with individual laptops (Garthwait & Weller,

2005). For example, teachers were introduced to computers and technology and were expected to start using it right away. Problems developed because teachers lacked experience and skill to use computers much less integrate this new technology in the classroom. Teachers have been given computer training and professional development

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 in order to develop their abilities and computer savvy and some teachers became leaders in the technological revolution (Kanaya, Light, & Culp, 2005). Slowly more and more teachers have adopted the use and integration of technology in their personal and educational environments. It seems now that everyone has a personal and professional email address, buys things online, keeps in contact with friends and family through social media and answers burning questions by asking Google (Wilson, 2003). Today, getting teachers to use computers for many activities is not a problem at all. This study combines the views of Prensky and the “diffusion of innovations theory” theory of

Rogers as they relate to the DN teachers’ increased use of ICT and digital media in the classroom.

Definition of Terms

1. TEKS-Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills

2. TEA -Texas Education Agency has the mission to provide leadership, guidance and resources to help schools meet the educational needs of all Texas students in elementary and secondary grades.

3. TIP – Technology Immersion Pilot. An evaluation program to study the effects of campus technology in Texas schools

4. ESETP-Evaluating a State Education Technology Program- Program started by the

U.S. Department of Education to fund the TIP program

5. eTxTIP – Evaluating the Texas Technology Immersion Program

6. ICT- Information and Communication Technology is a branch of technology that uses the computer and Internet to communicate by email, play games or find something the user is looking to purchase.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

7. Digital Native-Individuals, born late 1960’s, who grew up immersed in technology and as a result possess a high level of confidence and familiarity when using technology

(Prensky, 2001a).

8. Digital Immigrant- Individuals born before the existence of digital technology and who adopt it later in life.

Summary

In summary, technology has changed the way we live, work and educate. The State of

Texas and districts within Texas have committed to increasing the technology skills and competencies for teachers as well as students. The Texas Essential Knowledge and

Skills (TEKS) have addressed the addition of technology skills as a result of positive results from a longitudinal study started in 1999. Even though there has been progress in the implementation of information and communication technology, teachers and administrators have experienced challenges such as having appropriate professional development, developing leadership for integration of ICT technology, and gaining proficiency and confidence in using communication technology.

Students are also undergoing changes by their use of digital technology in informal settings. They have available many types of devices and programs that they can explore, create and design according to their own interest. It is questionable how much teachers have knowledge about or understand the students’ digital expertise in and out of the school environment. It is also unknown if teachers use the many available technologies in order to enhance students’ formal learning by using informal learning.

How teachers are connecting these two spaces is an interesting question to pursue in this study. The number of young teachers that are considered Digital Natives is increasing yearly and overtaking the older generation of teachers that have not grown up with

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 technology. They are Digital Natives just as the students that they teach. Many teachers use the same ICT outside of school as students (i.e., smart phones, email, texting, and social media). Do the teachers understand that students just like themselves learn differently than generations past and do they incorporate this ICT in their own classrooms?

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature that described the use of ICT by students at home and teachers in the classroom, the attitudes of teachers toward the use of ICT, and the term Digital Native was collected for this case study using the EBSCO databases with the keywords Digital

Natives, Computers in the Classroom, Technology and ICT (Information and

Communication Technology) and formal and informal learning. The amount of information was found to be plentiful so the criteria for the journal articles was narrowed to include only studies done the last ten years in order to report the most current research.

My reviews of selected literature led to the following findings relevant to my research questions. I looked for studies that focused on teachers’ computer confidence and proficiency and the amount of time they used computers in addition to types of technology they used in their teaching. Closely related to their computer use, I chose literature that reported teachers’ attitudes about technology use and whether the studies reported a changing role of the teacher and administrator as a result of using information technology.

In addition to information about teachers, I looked for literature that addressed students’ increased use of many types of ICT out of school and the characteristics of students as a result. I also looked for studies that informed me about the students’ feelings and observations concerning the ICT that is being used in school by teachers. Finally, I looked for articles describing the characteristics of Digital Native students. Several themes became apparent from the literature that was reviewed.

Characteristics of Digital Native Teachers and Students

Marc Prensky (2001a and 2001b) wrote two foundation articles about the people born after 1960 and considered Digital Natives. He concluded in the first article that

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 they had not lived in a time where technology did not exist and as a result the DN's had a different way of processing information. He also said they are "native speakers" of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet. In the second article he explained how the brain has changed based on the input it receives from gaming and

Web-surfing on the computer. Toledo (2007) wrote that the DN might not always be determined by age. He said that interest in technology and the desire to learn about it is a function of interest and exposure not age. Erika Smith (2012) and Bennett et al (2008) added to the debate concerning the term Digital Native being largely unsupported by empirical of evidence even though it has been taken up in the media and higher education. Guo, Dobson, and Petrina (2008) in a quantitative study of 2000 pre-service teachers from 2001-2004 found no statistical difference between the ICT competence among different age groups of Digital Native and Digital Immigrant pre-service teachers.

They go on to say that just because these students acquire basic skills early on does not mean they are able to understand sophisticated media.

Characteristics of the Digital Natives are: multitasking, team-oriented, and collaborative (Howe & Strauss, 2010; Oblinger, 2003;Tapscott, 1998), demanding immediate gratification and having shorter attention spans (Oblinger, 2003; Prensky,

2001a and 2001b), receiving information at rapid paces and embracing randomized hypertext and gaming experiences over static or linear work (Prensky, 2001a; Tapscott,

1998, 2008), and being self-reliant (Ransdell, Kent, Gaillard-Kenny, & Long, 2011). In contrast Tapscott (1998) disagrees with the idea of a shorter attention span. DN students like to have fun and relate that they learn more online because the Internet has fun explanations. DN students have access and use a variety of ICT such as computers,

Internet, and mobile technologies (Downes & Bishop, 2012). Firat (2013) said they

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 prefer graphics to text and jumping from one place to another in modules rather than linear progression. First goes on to say their learning approach has also changed to access speed, instant pleasure, impatience in linear thinking and multitasking (fulfilling two or more tasks at the same time) and continuous partial attention (state of constant connection with everything everywhere). While multitasking is a positive activity

(productive), continuous partial attention is negative (causes stress). Digital Natives use technology without fear because they know they can restore the technological device by restarting it (Rikhye, Cook, & Berge, 2009).

Bennett and Maton (2010) suggest that all of the debate about DN students would become irrelevant if education became more like everyday life (formal learning became more like informal learning). They also argue that DNs are not necessarily knowledgeable about and skillful in digital tools, especially in learning situations

(Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008). They also said that being familiar with ICTs did not imply digital competence.

In summary, Marc Prensky coined the term Digital Native to describe the person born in the late 1960’s. These people have certain characteristics that are an effect of the exposure and use of technology. In fact, their brains are different and they process information differently as a result. Prensky’s idea about the DN and the Digital

Immigrants was not based on empirical evidence but in the last few years more research has been done to clarify his claims. Research has concluded that being a DN is more complicated than just age and involves experience with technology as well as interest and exposure.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

The Wide Range of ICT that Savvy Students Use at Home

Sutherland et al. (2004) discussed the influence of young people’s out of school uses of ICT on in school learning. Students demonstrated their competencies by designing web sites using multi-media text, writing music using software packages and in math being able to manipulate Excel although they had never been taught at school.

Through the use of a teacher questionnaire it was found that teachers were not aware of the nature and extent of students’ expertise related to their out-of-school uses of ICT.

Many teachers do not know the amount of and type of experience that students have in using media out of school. O. Stevenson (2011) and Kirkwood and Price (2005) also share this opinion. Common Sense Media reported in their 2012 study of children, teens and entertainment media that children between the ages of 8 and 18 spend more than

71/2 hours a day using media for fun. The most popular activities involving media were watching TV, listening to music, playing video games, and using social networking sites.

Erstad (2012) discussed the students’use of more advanced ICT at home and the fact that young people are spending more time with different media. At home they use more advanced digital software and tools than at school for different activities. Clark, Logan,

Mee, and Oliver (2009) investigated what students are doing with Web 2.0 and other technologies in and out of school in their comparative study. They found that Web 2.0 technologies are a large part of student’ everyday life but are not used with a high level of sophistication. Fewer activities in school involving Web 2.0 technology and related devices were noted. They concluded that in order to change schools would need to consider the benefits of using the technology.

Pascoe (2012) wrote that the lack of good information about the media that youth are using has led to fear about the relation between young people and digital technology.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Youth cultures are shaped by the use of new media and parents and educators are struggling to adapt to their orientations, practices and ideas about digital technology.

While parents want youth to benefit from the use of these technologies, they are also concerned about their safety. Educators impose restrictions on digital media use for fear that students will be victimized. Youth are texting, writing blogs, updating social network sites, or playing games and are actually engaging in a learning process (Pascoe,

2012). Lieberman, Bates, and So (2009) also found that students aged three to six were using a variety of digital media to include video games, online activities, electronic toys, social networks and handheld media. Research has found improvement in children’s thinking skills, planning and problem solving but there are concerns that the most popular commercial digital media has not been studied or tested to determine benefits or drawbacks.

Stevenson (2011) discussed the use of ICT in the home by families during work or leisure time. He suggested that educators reconsider the nature of the curriculum in light of the children’s home experiences with ICT. In this qualitative case study with eight families data was collected determining ICT usage in the home. The families kept diaries about their ICT use over a 3-day period for leisure and non-leisure purposes. It was clear from the study that families provided Internet and computers to enhance educational opportunities for their children and that their use led to a complex set of family practices. O’Mara and Laidlaw (2011) observed young children’s openness and freedoms with their device usage at home and suggested that it might be different at school. Children are playing games, watching video, communicating using Skype and

Face Time, and listening to music via iPods, iPhones and iPads. They are also developing an “i” vocabulary.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

In summary, students are using many types of ICT out of school in the home environment. This use has increased according to recent surveys done with young children. Teachers may not understand or appreciate this increased technology use or how to effectively integrate it into their classroom lessons and activities.

Connecting Student’s Informal and Formal Learning

Maddock (2006) wrote that it is a problem for teachers and educators to know about what children are learning in their home life. Fifteen children were chosen for ethnographic case studies with the hope of understanding the activities engaged in at home and how learning was embedded in it. The researcher found that three children existed: The child the teacher knew, the child the parents knew and the “third child,” an unknown child, the person the child was becoming and wanted to be. The third child had its own learning agenda and although they were involved in similar activities they used them in different ways and for different purposes. Teachers sometimes do not acknowledge that students have their own learning agendas and see them as themselves or who they would like to be.

Kent and Facer (2004) explored students’ access to and use of ICT in the home and at school and the efforts to link the two. The quantitative and qualitative study proposed boundaries between home and schools were less distinct than earlier thought.

The study found that students do not experience “different worlds” in their home and school computer use. Boys used the computer and Internet more for fun (games) and this use had increased from 2001 to 2003. Internet connections appear to be the factor that young people identify as being connected because without it they would see little use for the computer. Instant messaging in the home is a key feature of the connected computer.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

In contrast to Kent and Facer, Grant (2011) did a qualitative study using two schools to explore parents’, teachers’, and students’ relationships between home and school. The study found few connections between students’ learning at home and in school. Parents, teachers and students generally saw home and school learning as separate activities and wanted to keep them separate. The digital communication between home and school was discussed as well as the connections between learning at home and in school. All saw the role of communication between home and school as avoiding or resolving problems such as behavior but did not see good communication as having benefits. Students were concerned that digital parent-teacher communication would exclude them from the conversation. Hughes and Greenhough (2006) suggested the use of videotaping to show parents what their child is doing at school could improve communication between home and school. Selwyn, Hadjithoma-Garstka, & Clark (2011) found in their comparative case study that the use of Learning Platforms to engage parents had mixed results. Some parents appreciated the contact with the school but others did not. The schools sometimes used the system to inform the parents of school happenings but did not allow for parents to respond or interact with the school. There seemed to be little evidence that Learning Platforms were leading to more communication between schools and parents.

Lai, Khaddage and Knezek (2013) discussed the importance of recognizing students’ technology-enhanced informal learning experiences and developing pedagogies to connect students’ formal and informal learning experiences. At school, the student does not have the time to explore and experience activities of interest because formalized education is not structured to allow it and some teachers are telling students to look things up at home because the time would allow more freedom at home

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

(Furlong & Davies, 2012). Schools are beginning to provide more informal time in school hours for students to practice less formal activities which may in the future bring school and home use closer together.

Hung, Lee, and Yim (2012) and Xiao and Carroll (2007) discussed the importance of students using real life experiences and real world activities for meaningful learning. They asserted that informal learning is not always located at home and could be in the community. Jubas (2011) used the same concept in her study that proposed the use of shopping as everyday learning in order to connect formal and informal learning.

The creation of a neutral space called a “third space,” or “affinity space” as Gee

(2004) called it, might be the answer to making better connections. Lacovides (2011) tentatively agreed with Gee but cautioned that more empirical evidence was needed to link motivation, engagement and informal learning. By knowing more about this relationship, there will be implications for the design of more formal educational environments.

In summary, students are learning at home and in informal learning environments but teachers and educators may not know about this learning or how to connect it to formal learning at school. Parents and students do not always want the school involved in what is happening at home even though today’s ICT is capable of bringing the two together.

Teacher Technology Proficiency and Confidence

Several studies examined the teachers’ proficiency using technology in the classroom and the factors leading to their feelings of confidence. Christensen and

Knezek (2008) said that the predictors of teachers’ ICT use were based on the teacher’s

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 attitude (will), competencies (skill) and access to technology. Competency and access are important during the first stages of technology adoption. They also found that teachers who use ICT creatively had a highly positive attitude towards ICT.

In a quantitative study done by Braak, Tondeur, and Valcke (2004) with 468 primary teachers, several factors were found to contribute to computer use by teachers in the classroom. The strongest predictors of classroom use were technological innovativeness (willingness) and gender. Males integrated computers more than females in this study. Supportive use by teachers was determined by computer experience and general computer attitudes. The study was limited by its inability to be generalized to other educational levels. Selwood and Pilkington (2005) discussed the increase in access teachers have to computers and laptops and how effective use leads to saving teachers time through streamlining paperwork and sharing of resources. Teachers in this study agreed that using ICT helped improve their skills, reduced their workload, and made them more productive. They felt positive that they could use ICT to support teaching and learning but felt less confident using it to analyze school and student performance data. According to Bebell, Russell, and O’Dwyer (2004) in an empirical study done with 3000 K-12 teachers, teachers who grew up with technology are comfortable using technology and will use it in schools. How teachers feel about using technology in the classroom can be determined by the training they have had, the time spent other than school use, and their openness to change. Technology use increases if the teacher has grown up using it and is comfortable. This forms the basis of their use in school.

In summary, the studies reviewed some of the factors of teacher proficiency and confidence when using computers in their classrooms. Teachers are more confident

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 when they have experience using computers and more innovative as they integrate technology use in their lesson planning and assessment.

Amount of Time Teachers Use Technology in the Classroom

Heidi Stevenson (2004) reported in a qualitative study with 14 third through sixth grade teachers that professional development done as informal collaboration contributed to their successful use of technology in their lessons. The teachers also responded that they could obtain new ideas and were more apt to use them when they were able to hear how other teachers were using them in their teaching. They also said that having more students to teach and more responsibilities were factors that affected the amount of time they had to use for technology. All of the participants agreed that informal collaboration was the most time-effective way of receiving assistance when needed.

Wilson, Notar, and Yunker (2003) found the use of technology to perform administrative functions and classroom “housekeeping” and very limited use for classroom instructional purposes even though teachers had computer skill development.

Guha (2000) said that teachers want to use computers but class load and time management were barriers. In a study done by Garthwait and Weller (2005), two seventh grade teachers implemented one-to-one computing in their classrooms and the researchers found that the teachers spent significant time finding quality websites to use in their class instruction and that preparation time was about the same but the nature of planning had changed by using computers. Most teachers use the computer between one and two hours a week and integrate the computer three hours or more in their classrooms.

Teachers spend a significant amount of time finding websites to use in their class instruction. They use some type of technology to perform administrative functions and less for instruction. Teachers use computers for a variety of activities during the school

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 day. Among the activities are lesson planning, grading, and email. Preparation was the most frequent use and the creation of student products was the least. The use of technology for a variety of purposes does not depend on the teacher’s length of time teaching.

How Teachers See Technology Helping Them in Their Teaching

Teachers use ICT more when they feel that it leads to student learning.

When Web-based resources were used in lesson plans, students reported that they did more homework, searched more for information, were more motivated, and made better grades according to a study done by Hinson (2005). This was a qualitative study with

400 fourth graders and their teachers from seven schools.

Cuthell (2006) discussed the pedagogy of teachers whose approach to teaching is an information processing approach or behaviorist support using ICT as feed back to the learner, error messages, prompts, templates and wizards, which provides a powerful reinforcement of learning. Teachers whose pedagogy is grounded in constructivism, multiple intelligence theory, or learning styles will utilize the learning experiences based on many types of materials and collaborative working and where learning is the same as practice.

The effective use of ICT for teaching subject matter requires not only knowledge about technology, pedagogy and content, but also their relationship to each other.

Several studies discussed the framework for understanding Technological Pedagogical

Content Knowledge (TPCK). Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya (2007) suggested that integrating the three is a complex task and just teaching the acquisition of technology skills will not be successful. Solving authentic problems through approaches like learning-by-doing, problem-based learning, or design-based learning will provide a

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 learning environment for the use of a variety of technology. Pamuk (2011) found that pre-service teachers demonstrate a certain level of knowledge in technology, pedagogy, and content but their inexperience in teaching makes it difficult to use technology in teaching. Koehler and Mishra (2005) found that working in design teams to solve authentic problems was useful. The members of the team developed in their knowledge of technology application. Angeli and Valanides (2009) said that the issue is not “should” technology be integrated but “how” to use it. Teachers can be taught how to design and solve real and authentic tasks. Archambault and Barnett (2010) reviewed the comments of 596 online teachers and determined that the framework (TPCK) is useful for organization but it is difficult to separate into domains and because of the ambiguity. A more simplified approach may be more beneficial for teacher education programs.

The price of computers and related technology has gone down and today it is possible for school districts to use free or low cost online communication tools. Almost all schools are connected to the Internet as opposed to five years ago. With the abundant technological resources available in schools today, the nature of literacy is also changing

(O’Brien & Scharber, 2010). Schools are experiencing the rise of Web 2.0 and soon student competencies will involve design and systems information and communication technology. Not all students fit the tech savvy picture associated with today’s students and educators are thinking about ways to teach the new media literacy (Stoerger, 2009;

Judson, 2010). Students are comfortable with the Internet and video games but these skills do not automatically lead to students becoming technologically literate in more complicated ways (Judson, 2010). Student learning will be demonstrated in critical thinking skills, collaboration and media literacy skills. Media literacy will not only

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 involve digital tools but also entail the production, creation and successful communication of information (Watson and Pecchioni, 2011).

In summary, teachers use technology mainly for individual instruction and are more motivated to use it when students learn. The students’ experience may impact the efforts of the teacher to teach some concepts in subject areas. Teachers teach and use technology according to their personal pedagogy whether it is from a behaviorist or constructivist point of view. Integrating technology in lessons is a more complicated task when considering the content knowledge, technology and pedagogy because it is hard to separate them. Media literacy is changing due to the increased ability of schools to provide more ICT in their districts. The change will entail students demonstrating critical thinking skills, collaboration and more complicated media skills.

Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Using Technology

In-service and pre-service teachers have developed attitudes towards using information communication technology in their classrooms. Penuel (2006) found in a study that made laptops with wireless connectivity available to all students that if teachers think that technology can support student learning and offers resources that add value to the curriculum, they are more likely to use it.

Hinson (2005) wrote that the principal’s attitudes toward teachers using technology in the classroom could affect use and teachers’ excitement. The teacher’s attitude was also affected by their experience using the Internet. A limitation of this study was the short length of the study.

Kanaya, Light, and Culp (2005) determined that prior technology use and perceptions of usefulness and relevancy were important factors in teachers’ use and integration of technology in the classroom. Teachers also needed to feel prepared to use

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 technology after being trained to use the software applications. They also wrote that computer experience is positively related to computer attitudes. The more teachers use computers, the more their attitude will be favorable.

Vannetta and Fordham (2004) wrote about teachers’ dispositions that are predictors of their use of technology in the classroom based on a combination of factors including amount of technology training, time spent beyond the regular school week, and openness to change. They found that teachers’ commitment to giving time and being open to learning about technology are the best predictors. They also questioned the use of technology being able to predict time commitment to teaching. Willingness and self-competence to change are also related to computer use.

In a qualitative case study of two middle school science-math teachers,

Garthwait and Weller (2005) wrote that it depends on the disposition of the teacher whether they have a favorable view of using technology and are willing to spend time and effort. A limitation of the study, according to the authors, was case study methodology in general. The individual character, circumstances and other personal traits of the subjects may bias the results of the study.

In their quantitative study of 49 pre-service teachers, Fluck and Dowden (2011) said that today’s pre-service teachers are the “cusp generation” that sits in the middle of the traditional pre-digital classroom and new technology. They are expected to teach students with computers more extensively and yet they have not been trained in their college programs to the extent that they feel competent. This competence or belief in them is crucial to the successful use of ICT in education. They proposed an intervention in which the pre-service teachers “envisioned” teaching in a digital classroom and were taught a process of developing an assignment using six steps based on the “Partnerships

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 in Professional Learning Model.” Lei (2009) studied the first generation of Digital

Native pre-service teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and technology experiences. The pre- service teachers have grown up with technology and are savvy with basic technologies and social-communication technologies but are limited in their scope and lack of depth of activities. Because of this they do not have the skills and expertise in more sophisticated tools and need help from teacher education programs to transition from

Digital Native students to Digital Native teachers who use a variety of technologies in the classroom.

Serhan (2009) investigated the computer technology preparation of pre-service teachers as well as their willingness and abilities to integrate it into their classrooms.

Fifty-four female students enrolled in an educational technology course participated in the quantitative study of their beliefs about integrating technology in the curriculum to enhance student learning and if the technology course improved their abilities to use computers and integrate them into their classrooms. Results showed that their abilities to select, evaluate and use different technology resources improved. Nzai, Feng, and

Reyna (2014) also studied the use of cyber-learning workstations to give pre-service

Digital Native teachers’ hands-on experiences to develop teaching skills with digital technologies. The quantitative study of seven Net Gen pre-service teachers occurred in a semester long project where they prepared and taught lessons while integrating technology.

Kim, Jain, Westhoff and Rezabek (2008) used 92 pre-service teachers in their quantitative study to determine the intent of the teachers to use computer-based technology in their classrooms. The study found that the teachers’ perception of faculty modeling of computer-based technology affected their intent to use it. It is important

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 that pre-service teachers be trained to use instructional technology so that they can be confident in using it in their classrooms as teachers. The teachers responded that modeling by the faculty made a difference in their attitude toward using the same approach when they became teachers. Kumar and Vigil (2011) also discussed the importance of modeling technology use in teacher education programs. They noted the need for pre-service teachers to improve their use of Web 2.0 technologies in teacher education programs and be able to transfer these skills to their teaching in the future.

Hammond, Reynolds, and Ingram (2010) in their quantitative study of 340 pre- service teachers agreed that mentoring, training and support of pre-service teachers influenced the use of ICT. Support in the classroom came from an encouraging staff and a mentor that acted as a positive role model for the new teacher.

Vannetta and Banister (2008) studied the technology competencies of incoming education students to provide a baseline of technology skills that would be advanced as they moved through the teacher education course. The students were given the

Assessment of Technology Competences (ACP) in the beginning of their program and again in the junior year. Results discovered that between 25% and 40% passed the ATC the first time. Gurung, Limbu, and Rutledge (2014) also found that computer competency was a significant predictor of attitude toward using technology. Pre-service teachers will be more likely to use technology in their classrooms if they perceive that they are skilled in computer use.

Traditional teacher education programs are facing a challenging situation preparing pre-service teachers to teach DN students but one must also consider another type of program that is also placing teachers into the classroom. The Alternative

Certification Program (ACP) allows degreed persons who would like to pursue a career

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 in education to begin teaching after instruction and passing a test. These teachers do not have classes in college programs that prepare them for teaching but they enter classrooms and begin teaching under the supervision of a mentor. Studies to review and understand how these teachers feel about their teaching experience seemed important as these teachers’ numbers are increasing. Mayo, Kajs, and Tanguma (2005) examined a three-year program designed to prepare the teacher candidates (TC) to design and deliver lessons that incorporated technology. Variables for comfort level, frequency of use and efficacy were used. The study found that the TC students were more comfortable and used technology frequently as a result of the training. A follow-up comparison study of

TC teachers, who were then first year classroom teachers, with ACP students who did not have technology training was done. ACP teachers used technology a greater number of hours than the TC’s but students of TC teachers used technology more than the ACP teachers.

Suell and Piotrowski (2006) also did a study comparing the confidence in instructional skills of ACP first year graduates and traditional teachers. The quantitative study was made up of forty-four teachers (25 in the ACP group and 18 in the traditional group). They found no significant differences between the two groups when confidence in instructional skills was compared.

Rosenberg and Sindelar (2005) reviewed literature on alternative routes to certification (ARC) in Special Education. They discussed the growth in popularity of the program, the available research in the area of ARC in special education, and the programmatic features associated with successful ARC programs.

Tissington (2008) discussed the transition that occurs between the ACP teacher and the environment, especially the mentors.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

The attitude and disposition of the pre-service and practicing teacher impacts their use of technology in their classrooms and for instruction. The encouragement of the principal or leader such as a mentor makes a difference in what the teacher uses and how they view and integrate technology. Modeling the use of ICT in college education programs as well as schools also makes a difference in the new teachers’ confidence and use in the classroom. Prior experience and training also makes a difference in teachers’ attitudes.

Changing Roles of Teachers and Administrators

With the actual use of technology in teachers’ classrooms and activities, there are changes in the roles of the teachers and administrators and their approach to teaching and leading. Uibu and Kikas (2008) wrote about the impact on teacher role perception because of the introduction of information and communication (ICT) into education.

Proportions of different roles have changed as well as tasks. Teachers are expected to change and use ICT so that students will acquire skills. The traditional role for the teacher has been that of disseminator or distributor of knowledge, but with the use of technology it has become that of developer of materials or expert in study materials, and individualizer or motivator. Dunleavy, Dextert, and Heinecket (2007) also discussed the roles of teachers in their study of 1:1 student to laptop impact on the use of technology- supported teaching and learning. Teachers became disseminators of information, facilitated communication and enhanced instruction.

Hayes (2006) reported that, in addition to being educational leaders, principals needed to be technology project managers when setting up the local area networks, making necessary structural modifications to school buildings and human resource management. They found difficulty overseeing the installation of technology in the

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 schools, which slowed down the integration of technology into the courses taught by teachers. Tondeur, Cooper and Newhouse (2010) concluded that the coordinator role, and school leadership in general, play critical but varying roles in the complex process of

ICT integration into schools. Success appeared to be associated with the support provided for the role, the extent to which the role was connected to school leadership, personal leadership characteristics of those in the role, and the strategies employed within the role.

The role of school personnel is impacted by the inclusion of technology on a campus. Administrators must oversee the structural changes that are needed in schools to provide the access to technology that teachers need to implement the use in their lessons. Teachers’ roles change with the amount and type of ICT use they implement.

They must find time to research subjects and appropriate content over the Internet to use in addition to encouraging students to search for information and answer questions.

ICT Teachers are Using in the Classroom

Informational technology includes many types of devices such as smart phones, computers and digital cameras. Thomas, O'Bannon and Bolton (2013) discussed the reconsideration teachers and administrators are having in regard to cell phone use in the classroom. Today's technology for cell phones has a growing number of tools, such as digital cameras, calculators, audio/video recorders, Internet access, texting, email and apps, that can be used in classroom instruction. Recent research reported the primary benefits of cell phones as student engagement and motivation. Drawbacks were found to be access (cost), training, disruption (in the classroom), texting and cheating. A limitation of the study was how the data was collected and the participants interviewed.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

de Koster, Kuipert and Volmant (2012) studied the ICT use in traditional and innovative schools and found that visual tools such as digital photo and video cameras, word processing software, presentation software and topographical software were used more in innovative schools. The traditional schools used the Internet most often for exploration activities. They also used exercise and testing software for reading comprehension, word processing and presentation software. Both types of schools used basic hardware tools like (laptop and desktop) computers and the Internet.

Sherer and Shea (2011) found that online video such as You-Tube is an example of Web

2.0 tools that are becoming popular to use in active learning lessons. A drawback to using them is the time it takes to find the right video. The biggest advantage to using video is that students have the most current information about a topic. Britten and

Clausen (2009) discussed the use of no cost technology and found that it may be the answer to districts’ problem of providing innovative technology to encourage student engagement. Student engagement is intensified with the use of Web 2.0 tools that they use at home. The suggestion of using no cost technology instead of buying costly hardware and software may help schools financially. Schools today often allow the first priority to be hardware, then software, then security, and then learning. If student learning is placed first and the question is asked, "How will students learn with it?" technology will be used to encourage good teaching and lower cost. They proposed the use of Web 2.0 tools such as Google Docs, Ma.gnolia, Jing, SlideShare, and Capzles.

The tools place an emphasis on the process for learning rather than the product of learning. Bartow (2014) studied the use of social technologies by looking at five secondary teachers using social media in their teaching. Teachers in the qualitative multi-case study were observed as “teacher as manager, teacher as learner, and teacher

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 as change agent” when using social media. The teachers agreed that social media improves engagement and learning among students. Social media challenges the boundaries between teacher and student as well as formal and informal learning. Other challenges such as the school policy toward the use of social media, more responsibilities and demands on teacher time, and pressures on teachers to cover standards-based curriculum were observed.

It is a fact that many types of ICT (Informational and Communication

Technology) are available to be used in schools. Free or low cost technology is available for schools to use and would cut costs for districts. There are advantages and disadvantages to using cell phones and smart phones, which school staffs are grappling with. Two of the disadvantages are cheating and class disruptions that have been observed by teachers. The use of social media can be a beneficial tool for teachers to use in their teaching but is does present challenges.

Challenges Teachers and Administrators Face

Technology has opened the door to many changes for school staff, families and students and has led to challenges. Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al. (2013) found that teachers have experienced challenges with hardware-related problems in addition to the lack of computers available for students and inadequate broadband. Teachers felt that there were interesting programs they wanted to use but were discouraged because of the challenges in technology. Uibu and Kikas (2008) described some of the challenges teachers may have as: selecting information and assessing its quality is time consuming, teachers must provide careful supervision for students to develop skills in cooperation and communication, sometimes there are more students than computers and teachers lack skills to effectively teach with limited computers, teachers need to be familiar with

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 group-work techniques, social separation due to students' differences in development needs to be avoided, and teachers must check the authenticity of students' work (very easy to cut and paste these days).

Because of the increase in the use of technology in the field of education, many staff from administrators to teachers will be implementing it more in the future. With this reality, teachers will find that they must become proficient and more confident about using many different kinds of technology in varied ways. They will also find the time required out of the school day to meet requirements for their administration as well as their own research will increase. Teachers will be faced with how to use technology in their classrooms to teach students and from their implementation of technology there will come changes in roles as well as other challenges. My study will add to a growing body of research that will explore DN teacher perceptions about the type and frequency of ICT they use, why they use it, and whether they think it makes any difference in the work they do. My study will specifically focus on teacher’s knowledge of the expertise of DN students’ out-of-school digital media use, how they find out about it, and if it matters to them.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The research follows a qualitative case study design (Merriam, 2009) to gain understanding of Digital Native (DN) teachers’ application of information communication technology (ICT) in their elementary school classrooms. The researcher inventoried classroom technology, conducted personal interviews with each of the five participants, and analyzed classroom documents and district policies relevant to technology usage. The procedures provided information for in-depth descriptions about each of the cases (Creswell, Hanson, Plano, & Morales, 2007).

Purpose of the study

This study was designed to gather information from the DN teachers’ perspective and determine how they feel about their use of information communication technology, time and effectiveness using it in their classroom, and if they see changes in their roles and teaching as a result of using ICT. The study also wants to know if DN teachers are aware of their students’ use of and experience with digital technology at home, how they find out about it and if the information is important to know. In other words, does the experience of the current DN generation of students that have grown up with technology impact their teaching in the classroom?

Research Questions

1. How proficient and confident do DN teachers aged 20 years old to 34 years old

feel about using ICT in and out of the classroom for varied activities?

2. What types of ICT do DN teachers 20 years old to 34 years old use to teach the

tech savvy students in today’s classrooms?

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

3. How were the DN teachers prepared to use ICT? What type of college program

did they attend (regular or ACP) and does it make a difference?

Overview of Methods

The research method is a qualitative case study with teachers that would help me better answer questions about how they are using technology in the classroom to teach

Digital Native students. This study is a qualitative case study based on the works of

Merriam (2009) and a non-experimental, descriptive research study to gain an understanding of DN teachers’ perceptions of their use of the many types of Information

Communication Technology that are accessible in the formal school environment. The qualitative paradigm is the best fit for this study because teachers in my study have experience using ICT in the classroom. The case study focuses on data gained from interviews with teachers who have first-hand experience using many ICT tools and digital media in their positions as teachers (Merriam, 1991). Trustworthiness was addressed by the triangulated data sources that included the questionnaire and personal interviews, inventories of technology in the classrooms, and other documents and artifacts relevant to the use of technology in the two schools. My researcher’s journal documents observations and reflections that were part of the research process. The teachers’ opinions, thoughts, feelings, and perspectives provided invaluable data in understanding each of the cases (Erlandson, 1993).

Case study design requires clearly determined parameters “as a defining factor of case study methodology” (Merriam, 2009). The following factors defined the present study: participants were currently teaching in the selected school district, ranged in age from 20 to 34, had computer access, used ICT tools as part of their job, and agreed to participate in the study. The case study focuses on descriptive and heuristic data gained

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 from interviews with teachers and has been proven to be the best way to evaluate the teachers’ perceptions through their ongoing experience in the classroom using ICT

(Merriam, 2009). The questionnaire that teachers completed prior to the interviews was used to assess their technology experience and knowledge as Digital Natives and further define the case studies. In conjunction with the interviews, the researcher made an inventory of the types of ICT available in each classroom. That information was then cross-referenced with the teachers’ comments on the use of technology tools for instruction.

Creswell discussed the value of the multiple bounded cases that incorporate the data collection from multiple sources of information such as observations, interviews, documents and reports (Creswell, Hanson, Plano, & Morales, 2007). In the current study, each of the five participants is described as a separate case and the study uses data gathered from multiple sources, which include the questionnaire, the inventory, the interview, and documents.

The research was conducted according to the regulations for human subject research as approved by the Institutional Review Board. Procedures included obtaining permission to conduct research through the school district central office and then contacting principals in the four elementary schools in the district. I explained the purpose of the project and the projected procedures for interviewing teachers. They served as contact persons for identifying teachers who met the criteria of my study and provided information for me to contact each of them. I obtained a signed agreement form and established contact with 6 teachers currently teaching K-4th on their campuses.

These teachers were actively employed by the school district and agreed to participate in this case study.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Participants

I used purposive sampling to select the adult participants. All of them met the criteria of my bounded case study and were considered Digital Natives since they were born after 1980 (Prensky, 2001). They completed the online questionnaire concerning their personal and professional use of information and communication technology and agree to be interviewed by submitting their name, phone number and email address.

Participation was voluntary and teachers could at anytime choose not to participate in the rest of the study. All of the participants were females.

Based on the responses to the survey, five teachers were chosen because they met all of the following criteria: completed the teacher questionnaire (digital form online) and were determined to be Digital Natives. Four of the five participants interviewed were between the ages of 30 and 35 and one teacher was between 24 to 29 years of age.

Two participants taught fourth grade, one taught first grade, one taught second grade, and one taught special education in the Life Skills classroom.

Additionally, interview transcripts and further questions created by the participants and transcribed by the researcher, records, and review of the teachers’ district websites and lesson plans as well as my researcher’s journal were used as data for this case study. In addition to the interviews, observations were conducted in the teachers’ classrooms to visually identify the ICT and tools available for the teachers to access.

Data Sources

The data sources used for this case study were questionnaires, interviews, classroom inventory, field notes and my research journal. The sources of data were used

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 to document and establish credibility for a qualitative case study (Denzin & Lincoln,

2011; Erlandson, et al, 1993)

Interview

Interviews were scheduled with my chosen participants. They were 30-45 minute semi-structured interviews scheduled at a convenient time either in their classroom, or after school hours via Skype or Face Time. Each of the five teachers responded to questions (See Appendix C) and a follow-up email communication was used to clarify some information. The interviews were recorded with permission of my interviewees using an app on my I-Phone called Highlight. A picture of them was taken, which will be attached to the recording. Field notes were taken during the interviews. The interview recordings were transcribed using my computer and a WORD document.

Classroom observations were also done around the time of the interviews with the teachers. The documents were secured in a file specifically created for the interviews and a dedicated email address was obtained for communication with the teachers.

The interview questions focused on teacher perceptions of their use of different types of information communication technology, the amount of time they used the technology weekly, and the tasks they did. They were also asked to describe digital technology they use with students in the classroom and personally outside of class.

Finally, they discussed their proficiency and skills as well as their computer training.

The questions were designed to obtain information to answer the questions regarding time and proficiency of teachers computer use.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Classroom Inventory

In my role of researcher, I examined the classrooms of the five participants that I was interviewing. I noted the existence of technology that the teacher had available in her classroom in my field notes.

Questionnaire

Prior to the interview, teachers answered questions on an online survey. The questions were selected to determine if they could be considered Digital Natives beyond just the age consideration. Depending on how the teachers responded, the total score would reflect the teachers’ ways of using technology in their personal and professional day-to-day life. The survey was made up of eleven questions of 10 points each for the first ten questions. A perfect score on the survey would be 100. The last question asked for contact information if they would like to participate in the study and did not earn any points. Teachers were to submit their name, email address and phone number if they wished to participate.

Researcher’s Reflective Journal

Beginning with the initial interview with the principals of the elementary schools,

I documented the ideas and thoughts from my experiences collecting the data for this case study. I used the journal throughout the study to review and congeal some of my thoughts as the process progressed. The reflective journal is a key for tracking the emergent themes within the data and maintaining credibility (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011).

Data Collection

Data from the observations was collected and assessed by the researcher and noted using a rubric. Data from the survey, interviews, artifacts, and researcher’s journal

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 was analyzed informally using constant comparison and triangulated to ensure trustworthiness. Open coding was used in formal data analysis with themes emerging as

I collected more data from multiple sources.

Data collection began February 16, 2015 with an introductory email to the teachers selected by the principals and ended approximately March 31, 2015. The responses to teacher questionnaires were collected through www.surveymonkey.com

To summarize the breakdown of data collection, there were teacher surveys, initial interviews, classroom inventory, and digital recordings of the teacher interview.

Interviews followed a semi-structured format that allowed deep thought questions to be asked during the interview process. Follow-up conversations to clarify or ask other questions about themes that emerged were also scheduled with the participants.

Audit Trail Codes

In the table below, I designated codes to organize my data. Being transparent and being able to trace the data throughout the study assures credibility of the qualitative research design. The data analysis included codes for all of the raw data in order to be transparent according to trustworthiness criteria outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985).

Table 2 summarizes the audit trail codes used in this case study.

Table 2 Audit Trail Codes

Code Audit Trail Reference Q Questionnaire CV Classroom Inventory RJ Researcher’s Journal FN Field Notes I Teacher Interview CQ Clarifying Questions LP Lesson Plan WS Website

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

An example code would be “I.3.5.15.FN.3.5.15.pg.1.CQ. 3.31.13”, which indicates that the data came from the teacher interview (I) dated 3/5/15, the field notes

(FN) dated 3/5/15 page 1, and the clarifying questions (CQ) dated 3/31/15.

Confidentiality

To ensure confidentiality, all participants’ names and employment locations were kept confidential and each teacher was assigned a name, which was used during the data analysis and reporting. All data collected has been kept in a locked box and stored in the researcher’s home while analysis and reporting was being prepared using a password-protected computer. All identifiable data was destroyed once the research project was completed.

Documents

Several documents were part of the data sources used in this research study to determine the technology integration they showed. I reviewed a lesson plan from each teacher, referenced it with the classroom technology inventory, and then viewed the teacher websites that are required by the district. I also looked at the district website and studied district policies on technology in addition to locating state technology standards on another site.

Each teacher selected a lesson plan to share with me that had some level of technology integration in it. From that data source I determined the extent of technology in their planning, content integration, and assessment of student outcomes using a rubric from the Technology Integration Assessment Instrument (TIAI) (Britten and Cassady,

2005).

The teachers’ websites were artifacts demonstrating the use and integration of technology when given teachers had the opportunity to creatively design their own grade

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 level website. Websites are publicly available for the community and all teachers are required by the district to have a class website.

Data Analysis

Questionnaire

Six teachers completed the questionnaire and indicated that they would like to participate; however, only five teachers went the next step and scheduled an interview with the researcher. Respondents in the sample answered that their birthday was post-

1982 except two. After further examination, those teachers were found to be in the age range to be DN. Both teachers were 34 years old and could participate. The ages ranged from 25 to 34 years of age. Questions 2,3,4,5,6 and 8 assessed the teachers’ technology habits. Questions 7 and 10 assessed the teachers’ perception of the importance of technology in their personal and professional lives. All of the teachers generally answered the above questions the same. Question 9 was asked to find out the teachers’ understanding of what Web 2.0 meant. Only one of the teachers answered that she knew the term Web 2.0, while the other teachers answered that they did not know or questioned, “Should I?”

Interview

Interviews were scheduled with the five teachers over a two-week period starting on February 23, 2015. The five teachers were given the option of meeting in person during their conference period at their school. They could also meet by using Face Time or Skype in the evenings or on the weekend. I met with three of the teachers at their school and by Face Time with the other two teachers. When meeting with the teachers in their classrooms, I could also observe and discuss the technology they had available and made a list in my field journal. I also made a recording of the interview, which

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 lasted approximately 45 minutes. After recording and transcribing the teachers’ interviews, I developed another set of six questions that were generated from the survey and interview data. The questions asked about the technology the teachers remembered in their own school years, the personal devices that they owned and used on a daily basis, and how proficient they felt using them. They were asked to describe the technology training they had in their student teaching experience and did it help them feel more confident when they started teaching. Finally, they were asked how they think parents feel about their use of technology, and the teacher’s opinions of the role technology plays in their teaching. I used email through the dedicated email account to send the teachers the questions and all of the teachers responded to the additional questions by a return email.

Documents

Classroom inventory.

As part of the data collection, I conducted an inventory of the five teachers’ classrooms to determine the types of technology that were available for them to access for their personal use and for the students to use. All classrooms had access to the standard types of technology provided by the district, such as a teacher desktop and laptop computer, student desktop, Smart Board/projector, and Elmo/Overhead. Two of the classrooms had more types of technology available to the teacher and students to access.

Lesson plan.

With this in mind, I evaluated the plans by using the Technology Integration

Assessment Instrument (TIAI) developed by Britten and Cassady (2005). The tool evaluates the teacher lesson plan in seven areas: planning, standards relation, attention

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 to student needs, use of technology in learning, use of technology in teaching, and assessment, with four levels of classification within each dimension. The four levels of classification are: technology not present, non-essential technology component, supportive technology component, and essential technology component. The TIAI considers technology use in two critical areas: Type I, which is passive or teacher centered and Type II, which is learner centered.

Teacher and district website.

I wanted to use the teachers’ websites as artifacts demonstrating their use and integration of technology creatively when given the opportunity to design their own grade level website. Dunleavy, Dextert, & Heintert (2007) describe the teacher’s use of websites as a method of disseminating information, facilitating communication and enhancing instruction. Teachers are required by the district to have a class website and they are free to design it according to their desires. All of the websites shared some of the same components. All gave an introduction to the teacher, what they teach, their schedule, contact information and a calendar. All of the websites gave a link to the district grade level curriculum (MAC). Some were updated on a regular basis and some were not. Mainly the websites were informational giving class expectations and links to resources that the teacher felt could be helpful. Only two of the five websites had blogs with active content about the classroom activities. One website had a link to I-Stations, which is a reading tutorial program for struggling students.

I reviewed the district website to find that the district posts TEKs for the academic core subjects in each grade level. In the topic of Library and Media Science I found that the program posts the activities for the year divided into six-week periods.

Technology is integrated into activities in some of the six weeks but not all.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Trustworthiness

In any qualitative research project, four criteria of trustworthiness, credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability demand attention (Lincoln and Guba,

1985).

Credibility is the challenge to carry out the inquiry in such a way that the probability that the findings will be found to be credible is enhanced (Lincoln and Guba,

1985). Credibility was determined through data sources that were triangulated using multiple types of data (the survey, interviews and observations), multiple sources

(records and artifacts), and my researcher’s journal.

Transferability is the degree that findings can be transferred to other settings, contexts, or populations (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The use of thick description and purposeful sampling invites other researchers to find similarities with their own cases and is used to encourage transferability. In this study, I wrote a thick description for the interviews and researcher’s journal in the hope that another researcher will be able to apply my findings to other context.

Dependability is achieved when there is clear evidence that the documents, interviews and other sources of data are not corrupted (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). One of the best ways to prove this point of trustworthiness is keeping a good audit process that leads from the documentation to the raw data. The audit trail was accomplished in this study by the use of a systematic approach to record the information gained from interviews, documents, and the journal entries. Recorded interviews were transcribed to more easily follow particular threads in the conversation.

Confirmability is determined by others being able to confirm the research findings and uses methods of auditing as a means of proof. Erlandson (1993) wrote that

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 the “conclusions, interpretations, and recommendations can be traced back to their sources.” The use of an audit process, triangulating data, and keeping a reflexive journal provide the proof for this study.

Context of the Researcher

In qualitative research, a single researcher in a particular environment at a particular time often collects data. To ensure the trustworthiness of the data, the researcher provides information on her own perspective and alerts the reader to the knowledge, experience, and potential biases that might influence the interpretation of the data through disclosure of the context of the researcher. The researcher includes the context here.

I entered the field of education in the middle nineties and taught special education for five years in an elementary school. At the time, I had access to one student computer that was used in a tutorial program in a center. I did not have a teacher computer at all and did not do anything using a computer. In the later part of the nineties,

I became an Educational Diagnostician and was issued my first computer. I learned to write reports using an installed program in addition to a word processing program in

Microsoft Office that I used to keep records and write letters, but did not have the

Internet or email. We had floppy disks for storage of data files and later CD’s to score tests. I began to do more using the computer. Since that time, technology has changed rapidly and now it is a different world. I have been fortunate to see technology grow through the years. I remember getting our first TV and that was the only public technology.

I consider myself a Digital Immigrant not only because of the year I was born, but also because of the way I use technology in my personal and professional activities.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

From this vantage point, I am able to see and understand not only the other Digital

Immigrant teachers but also the Digital Native students that use multiple types of ICT in schools and at home. I am now as plugged in to using technology as anyone. With my cell phone and laptop at hand, I can check weather, traffic, or email, and can read blogs and learn about breaking news. Working as an educational diagnostician, I am dependent on ICT for keeping up with email, writing reports, scoring tests, scheduling, contacting parents, and getting student information. So when the network is down or not available,

I find myself paralyzed and anxious. All my work is delayed until I am back online and can continue my work.

I see people working or surfing on computers everywhere. I started thinking about it in Starbucks (and other places) where people carry their computers and set up their “offices.” They are constantly “Face Timing,” texting and emailing to communicate with personal friends and business associates. I also have observed very young children in restaurants and other places in the community playing games, taking pictures and making videos on their parents’ smart phones. In other words, children are as sophisticated or more sophisticated in their use of technology than many adults. This leads me to question the teacher/student relationship in education and how teachers modify curriculum for tech-savvy students today.

Limitations of the Study

Qualitative research focuses on a small number of participants and this study had five teachers. Although the case study will confirm the use of information communication technology and how teachers use it in the classroom, it has several limitations. First, all the participants were female; knowing the opinions and perceptions of male teachers would strengthen its influence. Secondly, increasing the number of

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 classroom observations and interviews over several months and extending the amount of time for each would add data for thick description. Lastly, my study was done in a high performing district with many resources. Broadening the study to include participants from lower performing districts with fewer resources would strengthen the study.

Context of the Study

The study takes place in an independent, small school district outside a major metropolitan area in the Southwest. Information about the district was obtained from the district web site and from a conversation with the Assistant Superintendent of

Administrative Services. The district spans 231.1 square miles. The greatest challenge for the district has been and will continue to be rapid growth. Enrollment grew unprecedentedly by 18.3 percent over the past five years from 6901 students in 2009 to

7942 students in the fall of 2014. The District serves prekindergarten through twelfth- grade students in eight schools. The eight campuses include one comprehensive 5-A high school, one traditional middle school that houses sixth through eighth, one fifth- grade intermediate campus, and 4 prekindergarten through fourth-grade elementary schools. In addition, the district provides alternative methods for earning credit through distance learning. Demographically, the district is made up of the following ethnic breakdown: White (80.8%), Hispanic (12.5%), African American (3.3%), Other (3.4%),

Economically disadvantaged (26.3%), and Limited English Proficient (2.6%). There are

476 teaching staff in the district with 90 administrative/non-teaching personnel, 130 support staff, and 190 auxiliary staff, making a total of 886 total full-time employees.

In terms of technology every student has been assigned an email address and parents are encouraged to supply their personal email address in order that they may be contacted not only by phone but also electronically. Every teacher in the district is equipped with a

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 laptop and desktop computer. Every classroom has a digital projector that is ceiling mounted. All classrooms are wired for high-speed access to the network and Internet.

All systems come standard with Internet access, district e-mail capability and standard instructional software. All district schools have computer labs for student use. The elementary schools have two labs dedicated to group computer instruction. The district supported technology by closing 4025 help desk tickets during the 2013-14 school year.

All of the students Pre-K through 12th grade are issued a domain account with network storage. All of the campuses are physically connected with fiber to the Network

Operations Center. At the campus discretion, students are allowed to use and connect

Personal Owned Learning Devices (POLD) to the district wireless network.

Overview of the North and South Elementary Schools

The case study was conducted in the North and South Elementary schools located in the district. Information was gathered about North and South Elementary schools from the principals, the district website and the district's Assistant

Superintendent. The North campus has been open since 2009 and has 581 students in grades Pre-K to fourth grade. The percent of disadvantaged is 15.8% and English

Language Learners is 1.0%. The mobility rate is 12.1%. The campus has 37 teaching staff and 18 support staff. The school has met standards for the state assessment since opening in 2009 except in 2013.

The South campus has been open since 2003 and has 667 students in grades Pre-

K to fourth grade. The percent of disadvantaged is 21.6% and English Language

Learners is 2.2%. The mobility rate is 10.2%. The campus has 42 teaching staff and 22 support staff. The school has met standards for the state assessment for the past 12 years.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION OF THE DATA

Information communication technology (ICT) is being used today for instruction and communication with administration, other teachers and parents about what is going on in schools (Braak, Tondeur, & Valcke, 2004). Students come to school with large amounts of experience with the technology that is available in the informal environment.

Young teachers considered to be Digital Natives have been raised knowing about and accessing digital media since early in their academic career. Because it has been suggested that these Digital Native students and teachers speak the same digital language

(Prensky, 2001a), learning should be effective as teachers prepare activities and teach students using the same digital technology. But is this really happening?

The purpose of this study was to investigate how Digital Native teachers are using technology to teach Digital Native students. The design of this case study was framed by asking three questions. First, how confident and proficient do teachers feel using ICT in their teaching? Second, what types of ICT are they using to teach the tech savvy students? And finally, what training program did the teachers have and does it make a difference?

This chapter discusses the presentation of findings from the collection of data described in the last chapter. The first section introduces four themes that emerged from the data (Erlandson et al, 1993). They will be discussed in greater detail in the analysis of the data in Chapter V. The second section of the chapter describes the five Digital

Native teachers. The findings are presented in narrative format with each participant’s story addressed as a separate case.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Overview of Themes

I studied five cases of Digital Native teachers to find out what they think about using ICT, the types of ICT that they are using in the classroom and at home, and the professional teacher preparation of these DN teachers. With the case studies, four themes emerged from the findings: confidence and proficiency, ICT use, teacher preparation, and digital dissonance.

Confidence and Proficiency

Teachers have expressed that having confidence and proficiency in their use of technology in their classrooms is important to them. Teachers in this study come from varied backgrounds and experience but all are faced with challenges involving technology in their classrooms. They feel that they have fewer computers than they need for students and have somewhat solved the problem by bringing their own devices to class so more students can use them. They would like to use more technology but they are limited by the time to learn to use it proficiently and they are not “techy” and need training that gives them small chunks of information and need for it to be easy to understand.

ICT Use

We cannot assume that just because teachers come from the DN generation that all of them are DN to the full extent. They all have grown up with technology, use it on an ongoing basis in their personal life, agree that it is a necessary part of life, and believe that it can benefit students in learning. But the truth is that some of the DN teachers lack experience and expertise using technology and there is no guarantee that they will effectively use a wide range of technology in their classrooms. They don’t really know where they belong. They are caught between teaching the current curriculum, meeting

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 the digital needs of the DN students in their classrooms, and staying true to their own beliefs when it comes to technology.

Teachers are encouraged to use ICT in their lessons and all of the teachers in this case study do; however, there seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether students benefit from the addition of technology. It seems that for the most part the teachers are positive about the use of technology and see the value of it to student learning.

Teacher Preparation

Teachers’ routes to certification or the number of technology courses that they reported completing in their programs did not seem to have any significant bearing on their using ICT in their classrooms (Suell & Piotrowski, 2006). Modeling of the proper use and integration of ICT by peer teachers can have a positive effect not only on new teachers, but seasoned teachers as well (Hinson, 2005). It has been established in current research that for teachers to use computer-based technology effectively in their classrooms, they should be trained to use these technologies in their college/university courses (Kim, Jain, Westhoff, and Rezabek, 2009). The authors say college/university faculty must model technology in order to produce teachers who will use it properly. All of the teachers were immersed in technology instruction when they first stepped into their classrooms. Whether the instruction was observations prior to teaching, formal instruction in their college classes, or through their experience with a mentoring teacher, the teachers seem to be assimilating the needed technology experiences to teach their students and complete other required various activities.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Digital Dissonance

Digital dissonance tends to exist between the first generation DN teachers and the second-generation DN students that they are teaching. First generation DN teachers differ from the DN students they are teaching in the time they were first exposed to technology. Teachers did not grow up knowing and using technology all of their lives as students have. This small difference between each group seems to lead to a dissonance between them. Some teachers exhibit characteristics that are closer to Digital

Immigrants’ view and use of technology rather than Digital Natives.

Digital Native teachers are also questioning the current curriculum that they are expected to teach. They do not disagree about its importance or the rationale, but they are processing the differences between the expectations and the 21st century technology advances that they see in their own personal life.

Teachers’ roles may be changing from a teacher-centered to a student-centered approach; however, some administrations continue to expect teachers to be the center of educational control. The teachers first came to experience technology in their elementary school years. Second generation students have not only known about technology from birth but have had early access to it informally and learned to use it with skill. In some cases, the students have become the teachers and are teaching teachers about technology.

Although all of the teachers seemed to be readily agreeable to integrating ICT into their lessons, one teacher expressed concern about what they are expected to teach, the outcomes, and what they personally think about technology.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Teacher’s Stories as Cases

Case studies were built around the narratives of five teachers between the ages of

20 and 34 years. They are all teachers in a South Texas school district and are using

Information Communication Technology in their classrooms.

The following five participant narratives - one from Amy, Amanda, Jennifer,

Holly and Heather - contain stories about becoming teachers and their technology use in the classroom. In addition to questionnaires, the data was gathered from the documents, interviews, and researcher journal. The participants’ names have been changed to pseudonyms, which provide as much anonymity as possible for them, their families, and their schools.

Participant One: Amy

Amy is thirty-four years old and a fourth grade teacher at North Elementary

School. She has been an educator for ten years. She obtained her bachelor’s degree from a local university in Elementary Education and is also certified in ESL. She is currently working on her master’s degree in Technology. She teaches a gifted and talented (GT) class of 19 students. Her areas are Math and Science. Amy is also the

Technology Integration Mentor (TIM) at her school. She goes to district trainings for technology and brings information and resources back for presentation and training the teachers at North Elementary (I.3.5.15.FN.3.5.15.pg.1).

She has always wanted to be a teacher. Her mother was a special education teacher and she always knew she would be one someday. She believes that it is important to teach students to have a voice and choice. She works to teach them to take ownership of their education. John Dewey and Robinson have influenced her philosophy of education. Amy said that technology is in everything she does and

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 because students today learn differently, there is more student engagement using technology. She was not interested in technology until she became the TIM and started working with it (I.3.5.15.FN.3.5.15.pg.1).

Amy said that the most influential person on the campus when it comes to determining how technology will be used in the school is the principal. Mrs.

Montgomery wrote grants for Chrome Books and is encouraging the use of technology

(I.3.5.15.FN.3.5.15.pg.2).

Amy is a DN except one for characteristic. She said that she feels more comfortable printing out documents first instead of editing onscreen (Q.2.18.15).

Amy’s website has the standard district menu, which includes the welcome page, calendar, class schedule, and links to other websites and resources that she feels will benefit her parents and students. She has links to her favorite class videos, many photos of class activities and projects, class tutorials, and online textbooks. She has a blog and other web 2.0 features and the website has been updated on a regular basis. Amy’s website was creatively designed and very attractive (WS. 3.5.15).

The lesson plan submitted by Amy was for fourth grade Science teaching weather. The lesson plan she shared was found to be lacking in all seven areas because it did not show any infusion of technology in any of the dimensions. The lesson plan mentioned a student journal, making and comparing a bar graph, and research but did not relate any information about how these could be completed using technology. There was no mention of implementation of technology in learning or teaching. There was no attention to student needs or assessment to determine mastery of the lesson (LP.3.5.15).

Amy said that she spends about three hours daily on the Internet for classroom purposes. During the school week she uses her conference periods daily for about five

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 to ten hours for researching resources. She spends one hour daily working on the computer, but not the Internet for classroom purposes. Amy uses the Internet for classroom purposes for warm ups on the Smart Board, Kahoot, Blogs, Edmodo and

Bookmark. She uses the computer for gaming and Armaza. She feels proficient using

Print Shop and Weebly (website design). Students spend forty-five minutes daily for

Project Based Learning (PBL) and one hour daily for enrichment (I.3.5.15.FN.3.5.15.pg.

2&3).

She described a Project Based Learning class her class is doing as a school wide

PBL project. It is a “Go Green” campaign in her fourth grade class and the students are researching, reducing, reusing, and recycling waste. The lesson integrates technology and there is a rubric for the final product (I.3.5.15.FN.3.5.15.pg.1).

Amy commented that her students come to school already knowing a lot about technology and they talk about it. They play games at home. The students’ parents love the use of technology and how it is integrated into daily lessons. They make positive comments but some parents don’t think the classroom is a place for devices and such.

Amy said, “Students no longer learn based solely on pencil and paper. We must

elevate their learning and push them to dig deeper. Technology is everywhere in

our daily lives and in the workforce. We must prepare them for that by

integrating it in the classroom. Lessons must be interactive and fun. Technology

allows us to do that.” (CQ.3.18.15.pg.1).

Amy has the standard ICT in her classroom, which includes a teacher desktop, two student desktops, a Smart Board and projector, Elmo and overhead, tablets, QR

Code, and an OSMO gaming system and gaming stick (CI.3.5.15). She uses Kahoot,

Blogs, Edmondo, and Elmo. She has Print Shop, Word and test generator software

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 installed on her computer hard drive. She does not use CD’s at all because everything is online. Personally, she has an iPhone, iPad, Mac laptop, Mac desktop, and a Kindle.

She is very proficient using them at home (I.3.5.15.FN.3.5.15. pg.2.CQ.3.18.15).

Amy obtained her certification through a traditional program. Amy remembers using an overhead projector and graphing calculator in elementary school. She remembers having one class in technology and she learned how to use Word in college.

When she first started teaching she had the VHS tape and overhead for media. When she was a student teacher the only technology that she used was an overhead projector.

She said that she did not need any training to use it because she watched her mother use it enough that she could do it herself (I.3.5.15.FN.3.5.15.pg.3).

Participant Two: Amanda

Amanda is a thirty-two-year-old teacher at North Elementary School. Amanda has taught three years at North Elementary and one year at a private school. She completed a degree in Social Sciences from a university in New York and then ended up in Texas. She came from a family of teachers including her dad, grandmother and aunt.

She said,

I got married at 20 and we're still in college so, okay, I'm almost done with my

social science degree. I just go ahead and do that and get out, just put the

whole teaching thing on hold for a while.

Her husband got his teaching job and she had her second child. She felt it was then time for her to go into the classroom. She was certified through an Alternative

Certification Program. Her husband went through the program so she was familiar with it; she knew who was going to do the observations and they would let her do her teaching at North Elementary. She was comfortable doing it.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

She explains that she always worked with kids. Amanda was a nanny, and worked at a pre-school and a private school before she had her certification. She wished that she had taken the extra education courses, but that’s where the ACP came in.

Her teaching philosophy is that you have to go with the flow and teach kids how they need to learn: "You can’t have preconceived ideas because programs and curriculums change and you just have to be flexible. You have to try new things and be open because things are always changing."

Amanda said that the most influential person on campus when it comes to determining technology that will be used and how is the TIM. She said that the teachers on her campus “have a very good community” and that she will “email or text to go check out stuff on Facebook in my personal life." Teacher friends will share a video or picture. She continued, “I see other people using new tablets and I am exposed to things and then I can go get it.” When asked about the TIM, she said,

Our TIM, last year it was CAT, goes to all of our trainings and comes back with

that information and trains us and she is a great resource and I'm sure it's not as

easy as she makes it look. She does a good job dumbing it down and making

it easy for us guys so we can understand so she's good at giving us bite size

chunks of things and then you just incorporate it. We do but there is no pressure

if we don’t want to do it. There is freedom that works for you. There are things I

would like to do but can’t because I don’t have a single iPad or tablets and some

classes have five or six. Some things that she presents would be nice but I don’t

have an iPad, I don’t know (I. 3.6.15.pg.4.FN. 3.6.15).

Parents are also influential in determining how much and what ICT is used in the classroom. Amanda thinks that parents love the things they are doing but also how the

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 teachers use technology to communicate with them. She does not use it but her partner teacher is using Remind 101 where you can text parents. They seem to respond to that.

Amanda does not like to text. They do things like Sign Up Genius if there's a party with an email. She sends home an electronic newsletter to recap what they are doing. She says parents will not look in the kid’s folder so she sends it in email format. She is not sure how much they follow through with extra work at home with websites. Parents are busy with activities (I. 3.6.15.pg.8.FN. 3.6.15).

Amanda completed the online questionnaire and answered eight of the questions correctly, missing questions four and nine. Question # 9, intending to determine her basic knowledge of Web 2.0, was answered as no. Her overall score of 80 percent

(80%) indicated that she is a DN (Q.2.18.15).

Amanda’s website has the standard district menu which includes the welcome or introduction page, calendar, class schedule and links to other websites for Reading and

Math. She also has a sight words page, the first grade curriculum, and a wish list for the classroom. There was no blog or other web 2.0 features. Amanda said that about her website (WS.3.6.15):

We have helpful websites. All teachers are required to have a website that have

helpful educational websites for math and language arts. A parent may ask you

what they can do to help (their student) at home. I direct them to my website.

When asked if she thought the parents went to the website she said:

Probably not. So, in some cases I’m sure that 90% haven’t been to my website.

It is there but very few… they are busy. I’m not sure how much they follow

through with extra let’s work at home with websites (I. 3.6.15.WS.3.6.15).

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Amanda tries to implement some type of technology into every lesson. She described her process:

I personally figure out what is on the lesson plan even if it is not my area, I am

teaching Social Studies this year. I use Google search, You Tube, Smart Board

Exchange for those lessons. We are not as unified on our grade level some do a

bit more. We have some older teachers on our grade level that are like “what

ever,” not so interested and I am like You Tube video for everything. I have

favorites saved from last year. We effortlessly integrate some type of technology

into a lesson because we are so used to it. Mainly Smart Board, we rely on it so

much and the kids expect it. If we are doing Math on Friday, the kids will

remind me that we play a game and they keep me in check.

She seemed very at ease using technology and she said that she was very comfortable using the Smart Board:

Yes, definitely with Smart Board. Now if it breaks, I am not used to fixing it. I

am not techy like that. Using it, looking up things on the Internet. But as far like

sometimes it confuses like when we get a new computer program like an

intervention program for the kids. I am still paper and pencil and take notes.

Here is a You-Tube video to teach how to log your kids on the new math

intervention. I still write it down the steps in a notebook because I am old school

like that for some things but once I get the hang of it I feel pretty comfortable

with it.

Amanda became aware of technology and the important role it plays into her teaching in her first year:

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

I student taught in kindergarten two years before I started teaching. I was

pregnant with my daughter and stayed home with her before I got hired. We did

a little in kindergarten. We did morning songs on the Smart Board and the

calendar. Here in North Elementary, I was with Mrs. Carter in the kindergarten

hall. We used it a little bit there. She would write my notes for my observation,

“I am blown away with her use of technology.” I guess it is just my generation

like You-Tube. I knew about Smart Boards but not at home because we don’t

have one. I think I learned about Smart Board technology on the ACP message

boards where we talk about ideas. On the Smart Board I had an idea about what

to do and when I student taught I got to do it. Some classes don’t have one in

every classroom. I don’t know what I would do without it.

She admits that the first time she used it she was overwhelmed. She felt like she had a

30-minute training and learned how to turn it on:

It was a lot of information. I probably am not doing as much as I could do. I try

to dumb everything down. I am not techy. There is a place called Smart

Exchange. I can type in the subject and get some great things to use. There is

more that I could do. I jumped in and it could be more overwhelming but I let it

be. There are only so many hours in a day.

When asked about how she decides what to ICT to use for a lesson she said that she must preview for quality first to make sure it was appropriate for the classroom:

Preview for quality especially with the Smart Board Exchange because there's

things that will fit into the category of what you are doing but you open it and it

is garbage and a waste of time. Want kind of higher-level thinking instead of just

the same thing, I can get up here and teach it. I don’t want computer teaching

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

them. I'm looking for games that kind of expand upon a concept or take it to the

next level of how to make them think or I open games and they are lame. I do

some weeding out with videos. I review everything just because you never know

what is appropriate on You-Tube.

Class size and time management affect the amount of time students have access to the technology she has in her room. She relates, “I think everyone gets time with technology but with 22 kids and two dinosaur computers it is more of a challenge.”

Another challenge she expresses is the amount of time it takes for first graders to go the computer lab and get logged in. They forget what to click and their passwords. She has experienced other challenges as well:

I integrate more smart board and videos than maybe I would if I had a tablet for

literacy rotation and a tablet in my math centers. I might not feel the need but I

feel like they're not getting enough that way, just the two computers. I need to

give them more because they crave it and they like it and it's good content

so it’s more difficult with larger class load. I definitely have to manage it. I

can’t just say that Johnny can get on the computer. I have to have a system

because they know what is fair and they say, “ I am in reading group 4 and did

not get time on the computer,” so I have to be cognizant and fit everybody in and

be equal (I.3.6.15.pg.6-7.FN.3.6.15).

During my visit to Amanda’s classroom, I observed that she had the standard technology supplied in the district:

I have two student computers desktops, either Dell or HP, and they work fine for

basics. I have some programs for Interventions for math/La for some kids in the

morning that need some extra help and they have Internet on them. I use literacy

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

rotations (stations) when teaching reading so they get some computer time every

week, teacher desk top, not a lap top, Smart Board/projector and Elmo that I can

put a document up on the Smart Board. I don’t have any iPad or tablets in my

classroom and I feel restricted. There are things I would like to do but can’t

because I don’t have a single iPad or tablet and some classes have five or six.

Some things that she (TIM) presents would be nice but I don’t have an iPad

(I.3.6.15.CI.3.6.15).

She expresses the desire to have more and has been using creative solutions to obtain more. She talks about the access she has to school-wide technology resources and the competition to snag them for her classroom use:

This year we have an Education Foundation and I wrote a grant proposal and

kindergarten’s was awarded but ours wasn’t. It was the first round and we'll try

again. We have asked for it when asked what PTO funds should be for. I have

asked for one for each classroom would be awesome. This year we have a tablet

cart and it has 30 tablets on it. It is not ready at a checkout system but when you

have everyone in school vying for it… I have signed up for it twice for the first

week that it is available. I would like to see few more carts or more iPads on

campus. I am using two-dinosaur computers in the back. I feel like I am going

to forget it (computer lab) is there and found myself not going to the computer

lab in six weeks because I forgot just because it's not right in front of me (I.

3.6.15.pg.4).

Amanda spends three to five hours a week searching for things and going to websites like Teachers Pay Teachers for lessons. She researches on the weekend after family time on Saturday night. She will search and email lessons to herself at school to

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 use the next week. She spends two hours a week on the computer with no Internet for imputing DRA results, signing up for trainings, using Microsoft Word. She does a newsletter for the week and types up the spelling list. She also takes attendance but does not have to put grades into Grade Book because of the grade she is teaching. She said that she spends five hours per week or maybe less using the computer with Internet for classroom instruction (I.3.6.15.pg.5). She does not use the CD player for CDs even though she said she has some in a closet left by a previous teacher. She has Microsoft

Word, Excel, and Paint with photos software on her teacher computer in her classroom (I.

3.6.15.pg.6.CI.3.6.15). She relates how she uses the computer for classroom instruction:

“Projecting something up there and manipulating it for Math, morning song, Map

song, morning warm up, sorting, anonyms, synonyms, I can find anything we

could do on paper but so much is technology and they want to be doing it. They

learn more (students). I hardly use my CD player over there.”

Personally, she has an iPad, iPod, desktop, laptop, and Smart Phone. She uses them all with ease for the most part (CQ.3.17.15). Amanda usually does not assign homework for her class. Occasionally, she will make an optional assignment like sending home spelling words. She is not sure if the parents help the students do the assignment:

Yes, usually optional like a multiple-choice menu. For an example I sent home

our spelling words. When we get home, you go to spellingcity.com and type in

your spelling words and play the games that you can do there. That was one

choice. The parents said that we don’t have a computer or we don’t have time for

that or we were at the ball field and the computer is at home. We gave another

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

option with Rainbow-Write. Use the spelling words and write a story. I never

assign that is what you are going to do, I say it is an option (I.3.6.15.pg.7).

Amanda recognizes that students are very savvy these days when it comes to ICT.

She finds out about what they know and are doing by listening:

Basically the kids tell me. Oh Mindcraft. They tell me topics of interest for their

age group. I can kinda of –Oh there is a Mindcraft spelling game. I made that up.

I can kind of gauge their interest groups. When you have a whole class that play

baseball and softball they always want to play the math game with the baseball

and I can kind of gauge what the interest groups are. A lot of technology I’m

kinda sad they are using so much of it. They are telling me they have an I Pad

and this and that and I don’t have any in my classroom but they have one at

home. It is amazing. A lot of them have phones; I don’t know (I.3.6.15.pg.8).

She said that other teachers allow students to bring phones to school but she does not because she does not feel they are old enough to understand that the student that brings the phone gets to use it. She went on to say that in the older grades students do

(bring devices) for sure and you must sign a waiver. She said that her son sometimes brings a Kindle and her iPad to class. Some teachers have but she has not done that.

She seems to be thinking about doing it in the future (I.3.6.15.pg.9). Amanda recognizes that things have changed since she was in school:

It is so different than when I was younger. I would never bring a cell phone to

school, what do you mean? I remember being 5 or 6 got our first Apple 2gs

Computer and I played Gold Rush on it. I was alive and remember getting the

first computer and I was pretty small. In high school I remember getting my

first cell phone. At 15-16 I had a phone and pager. I remember having

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

classroom computers in about third grade (1990) and on. I remember getting the

Internet and got the first email address. These kids will never have my first

computer memory. Their mothers were probably Face Booking when they were

born (I.3.6.15.pg.9).

Amanda went through the Alternative Certification Program to get her certification. She was familiar with the program because her husband went through it earlier.

She did not have any technology classes in her undergraduate classes. Amanda had “on the job” training with her mentor teacher who showed her how to use the Smart

Board and document camera. This personal training helped her feel more confident when she got her own classroom (I.3.6.15.FN.3.6.15).

Participant Three: Jennifer

Jennifer is a twenty-five-year-old second grade teacher at South Elementary

School. She always knew she wanted to be a teacher and would teach “school” at home when she was a little girl. Jennifer attended a four-year university and is certified in

Early Childhood to sixth grade and ESL. She has been teaching for three years. She taught her first year in Pre-K and the last two years she has been at South Elementary.

She teaches Language Arts and has 44 students with 22 in each class. Her education philosophy is that the whole child must be taught and believes that a hands-on teaching method is best. She thinks that technology plays a big role in teaching. Her first experience of using technology in the classroom was the first year that she taught. She says that the kids are better at it and at first she was overwhelmed (I.3.5.15.pg1).

She thinks the most influential person on campus when it comes to determining how technology will be used is the principal (I.3.5.15.pg.2).

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Jennifer completed the online questionnaire and answered all of the questions correctly except two.

Her overall score of 80 percent (80%) indicated that she is a DN (Q.2/26/15).

Jennifer’s website has the standard district menu which includes the welcome page, calendar, class schedule and links to websites that she feels would be helpful for her parents and students. She has a blog that was last updated in March. Jennifer has a page for parent information and the second grade curriculum. She also has a homework page and a page of expectations that was last updated in January (WS.3.5.15).

Jennifer submitted a lesson in which she was going to teach nouns. The lesson did not mention planning or the integration of technology but showed technology integrated in all of the other areas which led me to think that the teacher used the computer to plan the lesson. The teacher gave the objective of the lesson but did not state the technology TEK. She did not plan a way to modify the technology according to individual student needs although she did provide an activity that involved technology.

The lesson did not end in a presentation, process or product that impacted learning.

Although the lesson had an assessment feature, it was vague, as how student’s learning could show mastery and technology was not used (LP.3.5.15).

Jennifer spends three to five hours weekly on the Internet for classroom purposes and three to five hours weekly on the computer but not using the Internet. She uses the

Internet for Brain Pop, Discovery Ed, Smart Board games and Modern Chalkboard. She is very proficient using Word and Excel (I.3.5.15.pg.2). Personally she has an Apple

Mac Book, a Kindle, and an iPhone. She uses all of them proficiently

(CQ.3.20.15.pg.1). She finds out about digital technologies that can be used in the classroom from talking to other teachers. Jennifer said that the skill determines what

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 technology she will use in a lesson. She will look at videos in Language Arts or an

Anchor chart.

She related that implementing computer-assisted instruction is impacted by the class size and time management. She went on to say the resources and reteaching affect time. Off-task behavior is a product of not being able to get around to every student while they are working on the assignment (I.3.5.15.pg. 2.RJ. 3.5.15).

Jennifer says that most of the parents of her students love the technology that she uses, especially Gonoodle.com for brain breaks (CQ.3.20.15.pg.1).

During the visit to Jennifer’s classroom to do the classroom observation, I found that she has the basic technology provided by the district. She has a desktop, two student desktops, a Smart Board and projector, a CD player, and an Elmo and overhead

(OB.3.5.15). Jennifer has Image Me, Office and Adobe installed on her teacher computer. She does not use CD games or tutorial programs because all of the games are online on the Internet. She said that students spend thirty minutes per week on computer assignments during class and she rarely assigns out of class projects (I.3.5.15.pg.3).

She finds out what the students’ technology experiences are because they tell her.

Boys like Mindcraft and girls like music. Some bring devices and they want electronic rewards (I.3.5.15.pg.3.FN.3.5.15.). Jennifer remembers sharing one computer for

Oregon Trail in elementary school, a computer lab in middle school and high school, and video technology for specials (CQ.3.20.15). Jennifer earned her certification in a traditional program. She related that she did not have any technology courses but technology was embedded in classes for enrichment. She did not have any technology training during her student teaching (I.3.5.15.pg3).

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Participant Four: Holly

Holly is a thirty-one-year-old Special Education teacher at North Elementary

School. She worked at a preschool seven years while she was going to school for her undergraduate degree:

It just fit. It was funny. I was in college and I was going for my teaching

certificate. I did not know that I could get certified in special ed. I was

getting certified in general ed. I went to see a counselor. We talked about

special ed. You could get certified in it so I did.

She earned a certificate in general and special education. After graduation she worked at an Adaptive Behavior Clinic (ABA) for two years teaching children with autism and behavior disorders. This year is her third year of teaching at North

Elementary.

She has always worked with children. She related to me that she always babysat growing up and took care of kids. Her grandmother was a preschool director for the

YMCA and her great aunt had Down’s syndrome. Special education is where her heart is and, when she retires, she plans to start a business, a day care facility, for adults and adolescents with special needs to go to after they graduate high school to learn vocational skills and get music therapy and horse therapy (I.3.6.15.pg.1&2).

Her philosophy of education is that she loves her students for who they are and pushes them to do more. She has goals for her students in technology because it makes such a difference in their ability to communicate with others and have independence.

She relates that:

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

It gives them independence. Just for them to communicate and tell us what they

want without us having to guess. The independence it gives them is

amazing. They did not use a lot of technology at the pre-school. When I worked

at the behavior clinic they used the iPad with the Pro Eclipse System. It was

amazing to watch these nonverbal children who you knew had these cognitive

thoughts and wants and just could not get it out. This app gave them the freedom

to say, “I don't want to go outside, I want to draw a picture.” Watching that I

knew when I came here if I had children like that I would fight for it. We have

the technology for our special needs kids to do more and I think we are able see

that they can do more than we thought before hand. Before they would be sitting

at a desk or table and you were guessing what they wanted to do.

Holly describes it as an emotional time for herself and her para-professionals when her kids showed more than what they initially thought they could do with the communication and technology. She cried a couple of times:

The first time that Jim picked a picture because he was hungry and realized that

if I give you this (a picture of food) and you give me this (food) was

amazing. He was so excited because instead of crying and screaming because he

is hungry he now knows all he has to do is give this picture and I get food

because this is want I want or instead of crying and screaming I just hand you a

picture of bubbles you give me bubbles and so it is making that connection. And

so for us it is overwhelming and exciting but for the child it is overwhelming and

exciting because even though they are young and they have disabilities they have

grown up with someone always telling them what to do and when to do it and

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

now they have a choice. They realize, “I have a choice, I have control in this

and I can tell you what I want” (I.3.6.15.pg.3).

Holly said that the most influential person on her campus when it comes to technology is the special education director. She also praises her principal, who is very pro-technology, and although she may not buy it, she supports them using it. Holly will video the students doing something interesting and will send it to her because she gets excited to see them doing it: (I.3.6.15.pg.3.FN.3.5.15)

Honestly, when it comes to technology in this classroom it is not a campus thing;

it is a department thing. So my special ed. department is more influential in what

we have in the classroom and what we utilize. So our Special Director is very

onboard with technology, getting us technology, making sure we are utilizing the

technology. If we ask for anything that is technology based, she's always pro-

tech. Last year, they had a Smart Table that the company let the district borrow

and they had it at the Special Ed. office and nobody was using it. They called me

and said do you want it and I said of course I do, bring it. So for half the year we

had a Smart Table in here and it was amazing. It was very expensive and on the

want list. Our campus tech helper is a 4th grade teacher and I was so excited to

show her this new technology. She had seen it at a conference and she was

excited that we had one. I had to Google how use it because nobody

knew. Google is amazing! (I.3.6.15.pg.4)

Holly completed the online questionnaire and answered seven of the questions correctly. Question # 9, intended to determine her basic knowledge of Web 2.0, was answered as no. Her overall score of 70 indicated that she is a DN (Q.2/22/15).

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Holly’s website has the standard district menu which includes the welcome page, calendar, class schedule and links to other websites that she feels will benefit her parents and students. She has links to her favorite videos and social videos but the links do not work. There was no blog or other web 2.0 features and the website had not been updated since October (WS.3.6.15).

Holly reports that she spends a lot of time on the Internet for her classroom. She added that she is single and does not have children. The night before our interview, she said she spent four hours doing the Smart Board calendar. Generally she spends three to four hours a day on the Internet. She does not spend any time that is not Internet related.

She goes to Teachers Pay Teachers, Pinterest, and online worksheet sites where she can type in what she is looking for and then print it out. She uses Word most and feels proficient using it (I.3.6.15.pg.2&3). She personally owns and uses an iPhone, Mac laptop, and an Xbox. She feels pretty confident using them (AQ.3.31.15.pg.1). She finds out about digital technologies that she can use from the specialists that come into her classroom (I.3.6.15.pg.5):

A lot of people tell me about it. Our PT tells me about a typing program so the

kids get on there and learn how to type. We have a coding program, a school-

wide initiative. Our tech teacher brought to our attention. It is an hour of coding

a day, anyway the kids are learning to code games on the computer so that later

on if this is a gift or interest we are basically teaching them to code games and

programs. For two of my kids, they love it; it is an interest that they did not

know they had.

She decides what technology to use in a lesson based on the content:

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

If I am reading a story and if I am going to ask comprehension questions, I will

use the talking boxes and get them prepared. If I want the child to make choices,

I will use the talking bar or Jim’s iPad. It depends on the lesson and who is

going to be in the lesson. A lot of Jim's communication goals are geared toward

using his iPad. Hilda's goals are geared toward output communication device or

sign language. She is sign language-based communication. We are shoving

technology toward her and she is resisting. Just because she is more social and

likes face-to-face interaction so we sign to her but use the talking bar for her to

make a choice that she can't sign is thrilling (I. 3.6.15.pg.5).

Holly says that class size and time management do not affect her use of technology in her classroom. She said that the large gaps in abilities affects her use of technology:

When I started my first year we were functional academics, which means that we

had higher functioning children. They were able to use the Smart Board to put

games that were academic-based and touch screen monitor. Now that we have

some nonverbal mixed in with our functional academic (students) that is more

time consuming now that we have more balls in the air. When we are doing

calendar the functional academic kids are writing using the Elmo. Hilda is using

the talking bar and Jim is using his iPad to tell us the months of the year

(I.3.6.15.pg.6).

During the interview, I observed the technology that Holly has in her classroom.

Holly has many types of more advanced technology that is available to her to use with her students. In addition to the standard technology supplied by the district, which included a teacher desktop, two student desktops, a Smart Board and projector, Elmo and overhead, she also had a Touch Screen, Light Tracer Box, Eye gaze technology for

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 laptop or iPad, Talk Bar, a variety of switches, Proloque Go Speech to Text, an infra red radio, wireless headphones, and books on CD (I.3.6.15.CI.3.5.15).

She has several software programs that she uses. She described the

Dragon Speak technology, which is a voice-to-text program. She has trained it to their voices to match their speech impediments. Instead of writing their stories, they are able to speak into the microphone and speak into the computer and it types it for them. She said they used to have an Edmark system, which is a reading system. It also has a computer-based program. She does not use CD’s at all because she has an account with You-Tube and she saves videos and music. She will use CD’s if a movie they want to watch is not on You-Tube. Her students use the computer for the calculator and do math games that keep track of their scores and improvement or lack of it. They usually spend about thirty minutes daily doing their activities (I.3.5.15.FN.3.5.15.pg.7).

Her students do not have any type of computer assignments outside of school but that does not mean that they are not using technology:

The iPad is checked out to him (Jim) and so once pretty much mastered using it

here. We made sure he was fully trained on how to use it and how to

communicate with it here. I worked on it with mom and showed her how to use

it. Actually, now he goes to daycare and I went to daycare and trained them how

to use it so he takes it with him everywhere (I. 3.6.15.pg.3).

Holly’s students show her what they know about technology. She related a story about one of her students showing her how to use the Smart Board when she first started teaching:

When I came to work here I did not know what a Smart Board was. I heard

about it in college but did not have any experience with it. One of my students

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

showed me how to work it and what to do with it. And so we work on a reward

system and he when he earned a break and he got on the Smart Board program to

build activities and he was showing me different stuff. They are not afraid of

breaking it as some of us are. They are not afraid of pushing buttons; some of it

is you can't really break it. Yes, or they are just braver. They are not afraid of

breaking it. Where alot of us, when we get new technology we don't know if we

want to push that: “I don't know if I want to that because I don't know what it

will do and I may not be able to fix it,” whereas they push it to see what happens

(I.3.6.15.pg.7).

Holly remembers her first experiences with technology in elementary school

(CQ.3.31.15):

I remember in sixth grade using a computer for the first time. We used to type

papers. In ninth grade we took a keyboarding class. I had a computer at home

but we used it for games and chat rooms. I didn’t start using it for research-based

activities until late high school/college really.

Holly followed the traditional program to obtain her certification. She did not have any technology classes but she did have some exposure in her student teaching experience (I.3.5.15.pg.8.FN.3.5.15):

The first time introduction to a text-to-speech program was in my student

teaching semester and we had a student who was nonverbal and we were trying

out different Dynovoxes with him to see which would was the most compatible

with him and easy to use and that to me was amazing. Looking back, that was

the only type of technology that they used outside of a CD player for the kids and

they had multiple nonverbal kids in that classroom. Just the thought of the

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

technology that we do have and the different ways we can use it and tier it to

each child is pretty amazing.

Participant Five: Heather

The fifth participant, Heather, is a thirty-four-year-old teacher in South

Elementary School. She teaches fourth grade Social Studies and has 41 students (20 in one class and 21 in another). Heather has been a teacher for twelve years. She taught

History in middle school in a local town, took a two-year break while her family lived in

Chicago and in 2007 returned to Texas. She taught fourth grade for three years, second grade for three years and now she is teaching fourth grade at South Elementary School.

She thought about going back to school for a master’s degree but has not decided

(I.3.5.15.pg.1).

Her philosophy of education is “Every child is capable of learning. You just have to find the way to tap into them. No child does not like to read; they just have not found the right book yet” (I.3.5.15.pg.1).

Heather thinks that, as a teacher, she must teach kids the way they learn the best.

In second grade, if it is movement you must have some type of video or music that they can get up and dance. Since she is teaching fourth grade, where they are students with some type of device, she tries to find the best Apps for them that are actually useful in the fourth grade. She says that you have to evaluate the App because they say they are for a certain grade level but many of them are not. Heather knows that she has to use something that is going to catch their eye but at the same time have the types of comprehension and inference questions that they really need.

She compares her class this year with her last year’s class. She taught in a school that had a very low SDS and technology was not as plentiful as it is in her current district.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

She felt that the students appreciated the technology they were able to use where her students this year seem to take it for granted (I.3.5.15.pg.1):

Some of it (technology) does not even faze them because they watch You-Tube

videos all the time. Like in ______where I was (last year), it was very low

SDS and they did not have that and so to be able to use my iPad for that station

one day. I only had my personal iPad so OK one person at a time could use

it. They were very grateful for that opportunity and appreciated it a little

more. It impacted them and they remembered it.

She describes the first school that she remembers using technology:

In ______we used the projectors and laptop. In ______ISD I had a

computer hooked up to a beautiful projector on the ceiling. I don't remember

pulling up games or anything. I could not access You-Tube. Everything was

locked. We would use the egg timer or like clickers. I do remember the Smart

Board. It was a portable one. I rolled it into my class to use it. During my

observation it was out of sync and somebody touched it.

Heather talks about how important it is for the teacher to be prepared when going to use some kind of technology in the classroom. She feels pretty confident about using it but admits that something can always go wrong (I.3.5.15.pg.3):

The only thing is, when you are implementing, you want to know what you are

doing and you have worked out all the kinks before you show it to the

kids. There is the fear that it is not going to work and that has happened to me a

couple of times or if something happens you have a backup plan. Some kids

don't have devices and not everybody can log on. Actually, this one day on the

website Kahoots, they were all on it but my computer had logged me out because

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

I had not moved the mouse for a certain period of time and when I went back in,

it wouldn't let me access the game. We have wasted enough time and they were

disappointed because they wanted to do it. The most frustrated I have been is

when I have checked out the WOW cart and they could never log on. You have

half the class working for it and 1/2 not working and then they have to share

computers. It is a mix of emotions.

She thinks the most influential person on her campus when it comes to the use of technology is the “tech” person. She is the librarian as well. She will do any training when it has to be done. If she wants other stuff done like unblocking a website or trouble shoot a minor issue she must turn in a work order for the technology department of the district (I.3.5.15.pg.4.FN.3/5/15).

Heather completed the online questionnaire and answered eight of the questions correctly but not questions four and nine. Question # 9 intending to determine her basic knowledge of Web 2.0 was answered as no. Her overall score of 80 indicated that she is a DN (Q.2/25/15).

Heather’s website has the standard district menu which includes the welcome page, calendar, class schedule and links to other websites that she feels will benefit her parents and students. Heather gives a page for ways parents can help from home, classroom expectations and English word stems. She provides links to websites for study guides, a classroom wish list, and Scholastic book orders. She gives an extensive list of links to educational resources for students to access, including I-Stations, Texas

History resources, Class Dojo, reading games, apps for reading and writing, and Time for Kids. There was no blog or other web 2.0 features on the website (WS.3.5.15).

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

A lesson for teaching figurative language was submitted by Heather. The lesson did not mention planning the lesson but gives a You-Tube playlist that could be done during the planning process. The lesson does give the content standard of the lesson

(TEK) but does not identify the technology TEK, although it is clear that it is embedded into the lesson using the You-Tube playlist. The lesson does not account for the diverse needs of students. The lesson uses the same activities for Smart Board and You-Tube for all students without variations. A book foldable is a product of the lesson but is not produced using technology. The lesson uses technology but does not impact implementation of learning or teaching in producing the book foldable. Assessment is not mentioned in the lesson but the activity could have been used as an evaluation measure (LP.3.5.15).

Heather spends one to one and a half hours per week on the Internet in the class.

She said if it is on the Internet, it will be fast, like attention getters, showing them a website about people on You-Tube, or games they like to play:

I will even pull in interviews with authors and like why they got started or what

sparked them to create in a book, for an example Percy Jackson, those types of

books, just to get them motivated. We do alot of book clips to preview books so

that they might want to check that one out in the library.

She spends two hours per day using the Elmo (the document camera and overhead projector), which is not on the Internet (I.3.5.15.pg.5.FN.3.5.15).

She uses the Smart Board but does not feel very proficient using it. Some days it will work for her and others it will not work. She relates that she has so many issues working with it that she does not work on it. Her friends have said that they will come over and teach her how to work on it and she says, “ Please do because it does not

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 cooperate with me.” She used it at the very beginning and then got frustrated and stopped using it: “We use it for projecting but that is about all. My daughter plays on it after school.”

She described the process she uses when deciding what type of technology she is going to use in a lesson. Heather is part of a grade level team that works together to find resources:

I think as a team we kind of do a little search to find videos that will link to what

we are talking about that week or a game in particular or video clips. I know we

use Texas History Portal something to do with Texas History, a state

website. They have a lot of activities and things on there and links to pictures of

the actual missions or when we were working on native Americans it would link

to type of tribe, what types housing they had, what they hunted, and where they

were located and stuff. As a team we will do a search and I say I am working on

history this week and I will sit down and try to find stuff even if it is just

Pinterest like trying to find anchor charts or something different instead of

pencil/paper. That is pretty much all I do.

Class size makes a difference in the amount of time the class has to access technology:

Even with the 4th graders I am going through the process how to get to your

settings and click on the WiFi and which to click on and all you have to do is

click on it and accept it. There are still the ones that even after you have shown it

on the Elmo and they can see it you still have to go to them individually and help

them get on and wait for theirs to load. The first time I used Kahoot in class. I

am thinking oh it won't take any time to do this. It will take 10 minutes and we

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

will be in and out and on with our life. It was a 30-minute process to get it up

and going the first time so really planning, especially if you are using technology

you have to plan extra time because something will backfire or you will have to

stop and teach them how to do it. I think it is better that they go to computer

(lab) everyday so they are familiar to logging on. I think it is the same ones

consistently that needs help to get on. The rest are on and waiting. Then they get

off task because they have all of this time. For I-Stations, I have login cards on

their computer. It is paper cards with their password (lunch number) and they

still have problems remembering the username and passwords. There are four

student computers plus my teacher computer. They do it during their

stations. Sometimes they have to use my teacher computer. They can go in

before school to get extra time (I.3.5.15.pg.7-8).

Her husband calls her the “gadget queen” because she has to have her gadgets.

She personally has a desktop, laptop, iPad, Kindle, iPhone and iPod Touch. She is still learning new things but is rather proficient (CQ.3.22.15.pg.1). During the visit to

Heather’s classroom, I observed the technology that she used. She has the standard district teacher desktop, two student desktops, a Smart Board and projector and an Elmo with overhead (OB, 3.5.15). At school she uses her iPad, iPod, and an App for library check out for books in her room (I.3.5.15.pg.3). She knows what books the students are reading and is able to monitor their preferences. She uses a behavior app called

Jojo. She can take points away or give points for being on task. It will send the parent an email if the student gets points. She also uses Remind 101, I Tooch. Reading comprehension app, videos, iMovies. She has Word, Power Point, Google Docs, Kahoot

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 and You-Tube. She does not use CD’s but has Read Naturally and Listen to Reading software programs on her computer (I.3.5.15.pg.8.CI.3.15.15).

Heather uses the computer for assignments about 100 minutes per week but does not have out-of-class assignments because some students do not have access. She tries to remedy this situation by giving them more in class time (I.3.5.15.pg.1):

I have two students that don’t have computers at home or may have a computer

but don’t have the Internet. If I ask them to do something on the computer, they

never have it to turn in. They are the ones, if we have inside recess, I try to

make sure they are getting some fun computer time and not having to go do I-

Stations. I am a little more apt to let one of those students play with my devices

for exposure with it when I bring them to school because you can tell the ones

that use it all the time and the ones that don’t. So trying to close that gap not

only socially because it is becoming a social concern.

She discusses the way she finds out about her students’ knowledge and experience with technology out of school:

I think it is informal. Like I learn more about that if they are in bus duty or in my

room they can bring out their technology and play on it. At the beginning of the

year, I had downloaded Mindcraft for my personal kids but they were not

interested in it and I did not really understand it. It did not make any sense at

all. I am from the Mario generation and at least we jumped on some creatures

and got coins and stuff. So I had a student who said, “Oh Mrs. Walter, let me

help you”. So he was sitting there on my phone and creating a world for me and

explaining to me all the things about Mindcraft.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

That sparks other conversations. I have one student in particular, she had an

iPhone 5 and then got iPhone 6 over Christmas break and she had them both to

school and both still working. She will show me pictures of guinea pigs. She

took this video over the weekend on iMovie. Just the informal conversation you

are having with them not necessarily (I. 3.6.15.pg.10).

Heather had some concerns about the use of technology. She thinks that students have difficulty understanding which resources are valuable and creditable on the

Internet. She does not use Wikepedia because of all these types of issues with it. The biggest challenge is realizing that all resources are not valuable and students do not understand that yet. She described an assignment that one of her students brought to turn in:

She did Albert Einstein’s photo and brought it in. I was getting ready to tape it

next to her essay. It was vulgar talking about... cuss words and she did not know

what it said. I made a note to reread her essay to make sure she did not put

anything about that in there thinking it is true. They think that everything they

read on the Internet is true.

Another of her concerns is what she feels is a lack of transfer or generalization from home to school in academics and improvement (I.3.5.15.pg.10):

Technology is not leading to improvement. That is the way I see it. Like when

we are talking about onomatopoeia we will have songs everyday that week to get

them used to it or whatever. We did the same thing for simile and metaphor and

I am still finding that they don’t understand the difference between a simile and

metaphor. Even when we break it down and only talk about just simile this is

the first week they were consistently getting them correct so it was isolated. If I

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

gave them a poem or any type of reading, they are not going to find the simile on

their own.

Heather remembers her first exposure to technology in elementary school:

“In elementary we had an overhead. Middle school Apple computers and typewriters.

In high school we had computers with Office and college computers and computers and laptops for projects.”

She earned her certification in Elementary Education from a traditional program.

She related that she had to take two technology classes. One was an introduction and the second was technology for education. She learned to use Word and Power Point.

She does not recall any training in technology while she was student teaching

(I.3.5.15.pg.13.FN.3.5.15pg.2).

Summary

Initially, the case study planned to use the age requirement to determine the teachers belonging to the Digital Native community, as Prensky discussed (2001a &

2001b). As a result of the teachers’ answers to the survey questions and their interviews.

I decided to broaden the information that I asked teachers. In addition to age, other factors such as first exposure to and the amount of experience using technology

(Tapscott,1998) were added to give an additional dimension to this case study.

Differences between the first-generation DN teachers and the students they are teaching

(the second generation DN’s) were considered to be an important issue because of the teachers’ initial answers to the survey questions. Additional questions in the interview section of data collection were added to gather more information about this topic of interest.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

As a part of the data collection, I could not continue evaluating the DN teachers’ confidence and proficiency using technology without seeing what technology they had access to in their classrooms. Conducting an inventory seemed to be the most efficient way of assessing this information. For the most part, I conducted this inventory when I met the teachers during their interview. For those that I interviewed by Face Time, I visited their classrooms later during their conference period. The technology and devices that were available to the teachers varied according to their grade level in two cases and by teaching area in the case of the special education teacher.

All of the teachers designed websites to supply information to parents and others about their class. Only two of the websites used Web 2.0 technology or updated their information on a regular basis.

Analyzing the lesson plans produced several observations. First, the evaluation of the lesson plans was included in this case study initially as a way to observe the teachers’ effort to include technology in planning and teaching. Using the TIAI to evaluate the lesson plan showed how to improve the instructional design of the plans and the outcomes that would lead to increased student learning. Second, teachers did not demonstrate an understanding about integrating the technology TEKs in their lesson planning. They may not be required by the district to submit a structured lesson plan that would show the integration of technology and so the teachers implement in a random fashion. Third, by using an instrument such as the TIAI, teachers and administrators are able to assess the use of technology and make data-driven decisions specific to their application of technology in the classroom as noted by Britten and

Cassady (2005)

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

In addition to the information that I analyzed from the data sources, themes tended to emerge from the interpretation of the data and will be discussed in the next chapter.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The qualitative research findings presented in the preceding chapter described the application of technology in the instructional practices of five Digital Native teachers. A qualitative case study design was used with each teacher identified as a separate case.

Data from a questionnaire, personal interviews, multiple documents, and the researcher’s journal were used to compose narratives. In the process, common themes emerged from the data. Those themes structure the researcher’s discussion of the conclusions from the research and address the research questions that guided the study. Finally, the researcher suggests some implications and recommendations for the future of information communication technology in the field of education with Digital Native teachers and students.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to investigate the application of technology in the instructional practices of five digital native elementary teachers in an independent K-12 district outside a major southwestern metropolitan area.

Research Questions

Three research questions guide this study:

1. How proficient and confident do DN teachers aged 20 years old to 34 years old

feel about using ICT in and out of the classroom for varied activities?

2. What types of ICT do DN teachers 20 years old to 34 years old use to teach the

tech savvy students in today’s classrooms?

3. How were the DN teachers prepared to use ICT? What type of college program

did they attend (regular or ACP) and does it make a difference?

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Themes for Analysis

Common themes emerged from the research findings and are discussed here as the researcher draws conclusions from the study. The use of themes to understand qualitative research findings provides a framework to communicate the focus of the large amounts of data from various sources into a meaningful format (Denzin and

Linclon, 2011).

Confidence and Proficiency

Teachers express that they have been overwhelmed at times by the expectations and being faced with integrating technology with little training. Teachers want to make sure that they are proficient in manipulating the technology before they present it to the students. There is a fear that it is not going to work and they must have a back-up plan when something goes wrong. They admit that they need any instruction they receive to be easy to understand.

Several factors will lead to teachers gaining confidence. First, the district provides the mentoring needed in the form of individual assistance to answer questions about technology and professional development. Second, people that are most influential in the district or on campus give encouragement to the teacher to learn and use more complex technology in their teaching. Third, the teacher learns to apply more complex forms of technology such as Web 2.0 in their teaching.

Use of ICT

Teachers have always had the learning and success of students in mind.

Applying new and advanced types of technology follows the same concept. Teachers with a willing attitude toward new and continually changing tools will adopt them, especially if doing so will lead to student learning. A fact of the future is that

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 technology will change and teachers that take the initiative and learn to use new tools will be able to see the positive affect.

Teacher Preparation

It has been established in current research that, for teachers to use computer- based technology effectively in their classrooms, they should be trained to use these technologies in their college/university courses (Kim, Jain, Westhoff, and Rezabek,

2009). Many teachers have not been prepared to enter teaching using technology in traditional or ACP programs. Many teacher education programs have not modeled correct technology integration and the future teacher will most probably teach the way they are taught. Pre-service teachers have no experience combining technology with content knowledge and pedagogy. In fact new teachers lack content knowledge when they first enter the classroom and use less technology as a result. The role of facilitator has not been defined in their teacher education program and as a result they will go into the classroom and model the mentor teacher, who is a Digital Immigrant, and teach accordingly.

Digital Dissonance Between DN Teacher and DN Student

Digital dissonance tends to exist between the first-generation DN teachers and the second-generation DN students that they are teaching. First-generation DN teachers differ from the DN students they are teaching in the time they were first exposed to technology. Teachers did not grow up knowing and using technology all of their lives as students have. This small difference between each group seems to lead to a dissonance between them. Some teachers exhibit characteristics that are closer to Digital

Immigrants’ view and use of technology rather than Digital Natives’.

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Digital dissonance exists between teacher and student and may be a disconnection between technology competency and literacy of the student. Students learn to use many types of technology informally at home or in the community but are not challenged to use it at school in a formal setting for classroom assignments that leads to products demonstrating student learning.

Students are finding a technology "closed door" when they come to class and are not using the same technology they use at home. Bringing and using their own devices only on "Fun Friday" and with permission of the parent provides minimal information to teachers about the students’ actual ability to use advanced technology for school projects.

Teachers have expressed concern about students being allowed to bring devices from home and the devices being lost or damaged. Amanda said students in other classes could bring devices on Fun Friday but she has not done it. She did not want to deal with them losing the devices or fighting over them. Her reasoning was that first graders are not old enough to understand that, if someone brought it (their device), they were going to use it and other students could not (I.3.6.15).

When allowed to share a teacher role in the use or demonstration of technology.

The teacher may be threatened by the students’ ability to manipulate more advanced technology better than they do.

Digital Dissonance Between DN Teacher and District

Digital dissonance exists between the Digital Native teacher and district policy in several ways. Teachers are faced with the challenges of assessment and accountability.

They find the district expectation of successfully preparing students to perform well on the assessments, and thus the need for them as teachers to perform in a different role,

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 shakes their confidence. It would seem that the district continues to expect the old school teacher image to be that of a disseminator of information and rejects the idea that teachers become facilitators instead.

Because DN teachers do not see themselves in the same role as a traditional teacher, they question teaching the DN tech savvy students of today with the same methods of teaching of the past. They are concerned about what they are doing and how it will lead to student learning.

They question the relevance of teaching the core curriculum, especially writing and spelling in the traditional format when computers and technology are making it more and more difficult. Heather discusses what she is seeing in her classroom:

There are some major handwriting issues. Spelling is a bigger thing. 4th graders

Staar test and we do alot and I get alot of text talk and spelling errors. They tell

me they have spell check on their phone and it is true. When I check my spelling

I don't use a computer; I type it into a text message to see if it comes up a

misspelled. I see that. Even when journal writing. I think they are more excited

if they can go type it up on a computer but they don't know how to type so it

takes forever on a keyboard because we have lost the art of teaching that

(I.3.5.15.p.4).

Teachers and employees of the district are affected by policies that require restrictions and filters in the use of technology. They allow students to use and connect

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 personally owned learning devices to the district’s wireless network. The district also provides a domain account for every student that includes storage, which could be used for websites, blog, and other Web 2.0 technology. Even though the district seems to encourage teachers and students to use ICT more in the school day, there are other signs that indicate that the district is not as committed as it may seem. The elementary schools in this study do not encourage students to bring personal devices except on Fun Fridays and only with parent permission. It was seen that a "closed door" policy adds to the DN teachers’ dissonance. They want to use their professional knowledge and experience to select appropriate technology for student learning but are restricted by district policy and procedures.

Research Questions

After using these four themes to analyze the data in the case studies, the research questions that guided the study can be addressed.

Research Question 1

How proficient and confident do DN teachers aged 20 years old to 34 years old feel using ICT in and out of the classroom for varied activities?

Teachers express that it is important to have confidence and be proficient using technology in their classrooms. This study examined several immerging themes from the data. Teachers in this study come from varied backgrounds and experience but all are faced with challenges involving technology in their classrooms. They feel they need more computers for students to use and have partially solved the problem by bringing their own devices for students to use. They would like to use more technology but time

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 limits learning to use it proficiently. They admit they are not “techy” and need training that gives them small chunks of information and is easy to understand.

Digital dissonance tends to exist between the first generation DN teachers and the second-generation DN students that they are teaching. First generation DN teachers differ from the DN students they are teaching in the time they were first exposed to technology. Teachers did not grow up knowing and using technology all of their lives as students have. The teachers first came to experience technology in their elementary school years. Second generation students have not only known about technology from birth but have had early access to it informally and learned to use it with skill. In some cases, the students have become the teachers and are teaching teachers about technology.

This small difference between when each group came to use technology seems to lead to a dissonance between them. Some teachers exhibit characteristics that are closer to

Digital Immigrants’ view and use of technology rather than Digital Natives’.

DN teachers are caught between the worlds of teaching the 20th century curriculum and teaching skills that are needed in the 21st century (Prensky, 2014). DN teachers might be reluctant to integrate technology because they do not feel comfortable about using it to teach elementary content for math, language arts, science and social studies (Lei, 2009). Their peers and administrators encourage them to incorporate ICT in their teaching and have a positive attitude. In this case study the lower grade level teachers have some reservations.

We cannot assume that just because teachers come from the DN generation that all of them are DN to the full extinct. They all have grown up with technology, use it on an ongoing basis in their personal life, agree that it is a necessary part of life and believe that it can benefit students in learning. The truth is that some of the DN teachers lack

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 experience and expertise using more advanced technology and there is no guarantee that they will effectively use a wide range of technology in their classrooms (Serhan, 2009).

They don’t really know where they belong. They are caught between teaching the current curriculum, meeting the digital needs of the DN students in their classrooms, and staying true to their own beliefs when it comes to technology.

Research Question 2

What types of ICT do DN teachers 20 years old to 34 years old use to teach the tech savvy students in today’s classrooms?

Teachers are encouraged to use ICT in their lessons and all of the teachers in this case study do however, there seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether students benefit from the addition of technology. It seems that for the most part the teachers are positive about the use of technology and see the value of it to student learning. Teachers find out what students are doing with technology through informal conversation as well as in the classroom. There is some question about the competence of the DN students in today’s classrooms (Li & Ranieri, 2011). Students know how to use many digital tools, such as downloading a video game but educators are unsure about how DN students use tools in the learning environment. Assuming that students are more competent than they really are tends to slow student learning and must be considered when deciding what ICT to use in the classroom (Bennett, Maton & Kervin,

2008).

DN teachers are using a variety of ICT at home but at school the variety is limited. This might be a significant factor in deciding what technology to use in lessons to produce effective student learning. Teachers generally use simple technology and do

100

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 not use Web 2.0 tools or more sophisticated types of technology at school (Koehler &

Mishra, 2005).

Research Question 3

How were the DN teachers prepared to use ICT? What type of college program did they attend (regular or ACP) and does it make a difference?

The certification route taken by the teachers in this case study did not seem to make much difference in their use of ICT when they became a teacher. All of the teachers found that they were expected to integrate technology into their lessons and were given instruction and information from chosen technology mentors on their campuses. Some of the teachers had observations prior to teaching, formal instruction in their college classes, or other experiences after they became teachers. The teachers seem to be assimilating the needed technology skills to teach their students and complete other required various activities.

Implications of the Study

An implication of the study is recognition that both teachers and students may already have technology skills that are not being used for education. Teacher empowerment can be attained by teachers through a change of attitude that will lead to increased teacher capacity in several areas. Empowerment of the teacher is the missing link between the teacher’s lack of confidence, technology use, teacher preparation and the dissonance that exists for the teacher between the district and student.

Empowerment of the teacher will involve a change in attitude and perspective of not only the district planners but also the employees working as teacher educators and facilitators.

101

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

First, the teacher who systematically gathers data on the effectiveness of technology tools infused into lessons will have site-specific evidence about their students’ learning with technology over an extended period of time. Such research can then inform technology decisions and policy within the district.

Teachers already have the beginnings of partner collaboration because of their close communication and sharing of technology resources. They are working together to develop lessons and consult with each other about using technology.

Trainers that prepare professional development must encourage teachers to explore research methods that would reveal successful classroom strategies to address the problem of "practical integration" of ICT in curriculum (combining technology, content knowledge and pedagogy). A shift in a district’s approach to professional development in technology may address the issue of the gap between a technology-rich society and an educational system lagging behind. The study points toward a need for professional development with in-service teachers that both focuses on use of Web2.0 and also promotes individual teacher initiative in investigating new technology.

Teachers have not been prepared to enter teaching using technology in traditional or ACP programs. Many teacher education programs have not modeled technology integration and the future teacher will most probably teach the way they are taught. In fact new teachers lack content knowledge when they first enter the classroom and may use less technology as a result. The role of facilitator has not been defined in their teacher education program and as a result they will go into the classroom and model the mentor teacher, who is a Digital Immigrant, and teach accordingly. University teachers, who are most probably Digital Immigrants, don't have to know how to use all of the sophisticated technology. They just have to allow students to demonstrate the use and

102

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 produce products under their direction. Many university teachers have the content knowledge and pedagogy experience and the students are experienced in technology use.

A powerful contribution can be made by joining these two groups to demonstrate the successful relationship between teachers as facilitators and students who take up the role of teachers.

In addition to modeling effective technology use, the teacher demonstrates the relationship that the pre service teacher should have with their future students, that of facilitator instead of disseminator. Finally, the university teacher in the education program instructs the future teacher in the art of teacher research and prepares the pre- service teacher to go into the classroom and make observations and collect data that will help them see what is working in their classroom and what it not.

Second, a change in attitude will help resolve the dissonance that exists between the district and the student and the teacher. The disconnect or dissonance between the district policy and their "closed door" and "turn off cell phone before entering" procedures can be solved by an open discussion about these policies and considering a change of attitude and approach to policy. While a shift in attitude of district policy is a good start, they can also consider the role of the teacher in the education process. When district and teachers evaluate their roles as disseminator of information and consider becoming facilitators, they become willing and innovative catalysts to bring more advanced technology and student learning together. A shift in thinking can also solve the problem of practical integration of technology into the curriculum so students are learning more effectively.

Lastly, a change of attitude will allow the teacher to accept and appreciate the student as a teacher and capitalize on their skills and expertise. When allowed to share a

103

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 teacher role in the use or demonstration of technology, the teacher may be empowered by the students’ ability to manipulate more advanced technology better than the teacher does. Students come to school knowing more about ICT, are more confident using it and are not afraid of working with it. They can act as experts to parents and teachers and are able to not only teach parents at home about technology but also teach teachers at school about practices they have experienced at home (Kent & Facer, 2004). In some cases, the teacher’s position is threatened.

Rather than the teacher controlling the content, pedagogy, and technology, they can draw upon the technology savvy of students to explore ways to apply their skills for content learning. Such collaboration between teacher and student may fill the gaps that separate K-12 academics from the technology skills both groups use beyond the schoolroom.

Recommendations

Digital Native teachers and students have a varying level of skills in using technology at home and in school. Integration of information communication technology into the academic curriculum is slow to be applied by teachers. Even Digital

Native teachers primarily use technology for administrative tasks that include planning lessons, communicating with parents, submitting documents to their principals, and monitoring student assignments. The literature suggests that teachers spend a significant amount of time finding websites to use in their class instruction, or performing administrative functions, but much less time using technology for student instruction

(Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004). Little evidence is found of teachers using the variety of available Web 2.0 technology as tools of instruction with their students. The research points to an underlying issue that interferes with effectively applying content

104

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 knowledge and technology skills of both teachers and students to educational tasks. The teachers expressed a lack of confidence in using new technologies with students, not because they lacked technology skills, but because they were not confident the technology tools would adequately prepare their students for success on district and state level assessments. They had no evidence to support a decision to deviate from the traditional classroom practices. They did not know if their students would be successful learners in the classroom using technology tools they typically used only in informal situations. Recommendations are presented for consideration based on the above concerns and center around encouraging teachers as researchers, dissolving dissonance between the district, students, and teachers, and accepting that students may be used as effective teachers in the classroom.

Teacher Research

The first recommendation concerns professional development in the area of teacher research. Professional development can address the issue of the gap in ICT integration in the classroom. Teachers who systematically gather data on the effectiveness of technology tools infused into lessons will have site-specific evidence about their students’ learning with technology over an extended period of time. Such research can then inform technology decisions and policy within the district. An empowered teacher who understands the importance of the role of research in teaching can become a great asset for the classroom, the school, district and the students.

Teacher research within the classroom may also reduce digital dissonance between teachers and students. In the same way, the digital dissonance between the teachers and the district where they are employed is addressed when district technology policies are informed by quality teacher-research from the local schools. The research is

105

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 highly relevant to the particular community and the issues specific to their schools and their children. When districts have research-based policies that encourage expanded academic uses of ICT, they diffuse dissonance between established practices and 21st century Digital Natives.

Alignment of District Policy and Practice

The second recommendation concerns district policy and practice. Considering a district alignment of policy and practice between what is supported by the district in regard to technology and the inclusion of technology in the classroom would provide continuity in all grades from Kindergarten to high school. District will encourage teachers to become more collaborative with each other and provide professional development to assist teachers in adjusting their teaching style from the transmitter of information to listener and facilitator. When districts have research-based policies that encourage expanded academic uses of ICT, they diffuse dissonance between established practices and 21st century Digital Natives. Thus, Digital Native students and teachers can stay plugged in to their electronic devices while they are engaged in purposeful use of technology. A closed-door policy on technology use can be opened for schools to catch up with the applications teachers and students already access for learning outside of school.

Districts will consider the changing role of the teacher in regard to the use of technology and encourage them to "think outside of the box" and be more creative in applying technology in teaching the content that the district requires them to teach.

When teachers evaluate their role as disseminator and consider becoming facilitators, they will become a willing and innovative catalyst to bring more advanced technology and student learning together.

106

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

The district should review and reconsider their policy of providing technology access to students and employees in the form of domain accounts to include storage that could be used for websites, blogs, and other Web 2.0 technology as well as the use of

Personal Owned Learning Devices (POLD). If a district spends money for expanded technology data storage and provides Internet access for all teachers and students, the limited school funds are being wasted when the classroom doors have signs posted saying, "Turn off cell phone before entering. "

Future Research

Teacher Research as is Relates to Professional Development

Future research in the area of professional development as it relates to teacher research can have a positive effect on teachers who are taught to systematically gather data on the effectiveness of technology tools infused into lessons. Such research can then inform technology decisions and policy within the district. An empowered teacher who understands the importance of the role of research in teaching can become a great asset for, the classroom, the school, the district and the students.

Student as Teacher

Future research should explore the ways to empower teachers to draw upon the technology savvy of students and find ways to apply their skills for content learning.

Such collaboration between teacher and student may fill the gaps that separate K-12 academics from the technology skills both groups use beyond the schoolroom.

Teacher Empowerment in Applying Web 2.0 into Classroom Instruction

The study points toward a need for research to empower in-service teachers to learn to apply more complex forms of technology such as Web 2.0 in their teaching, and to promote individual teacher initiative in investigating new technology.

107

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Conclusion

While information communication technology has provided educators with new ways to teach today’s Digital Native students, the effective integration of technology into curriculum remains a challenge for many teachers. The research study investigates the application of technology in the instructional practices of five Digital Native elementary teachers in an independent K-12 district outside a major southwestern metropolitan area. Using descriptive case study design, the researcher made an inventory of classroom technology, conducted interviews with each of the participants, and analyzed classroom documents and district policies. The findings suggest that even

Digital Native teachers face challenges in using newer Web 2.0 technologies in designing instruction for their students. They experience a digital dissonance between their personal and professional use of technology under standard district policies.

Empowering Digital Native teachers to integrate their knowledge of content and pedagogy with technology skills offers a valuable resource for resolving the gap between information communication technology and curriculum in today’s schools.

108

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

References

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

conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education,

52(1), 154-168.

Archambault, L.M., & Barnett, J.H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical

content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education,

55(4), 1656-1662.

Asing-Cushman, J, G., Gurung, B., Limbu, Y.B.,& Rutledge, D. (2014). Free and open

source tools (FOSTs): An empirical investigation of pre-service teacher’s

competencies, attitudes, and pedagogical intentions. International Journal of

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(1), 66-77.

Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses:

Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, 37(1), 45-63.

Babell, D.,O’Dwyer, L.M., Russell, M., & Hoffman, T. (2010). Concerns, considerations,

and new ideas for data collection and research in educational technology studies.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 29-52.

Becker H.J. (1999) Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-

directed student use. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey

Report #1. Available at: http://sandbox.ea.ecu.edu.au/

staffuse/cnewhous/resources/Becker%20Report.pdf (last accessed 3 December

2009)

109

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more

nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical

review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5), 775-

786.

Blom, M., ten Brinke, J., van Oel, B.J., Rozenburg, R., Remery, M., & Muntingh, T., et

al. (2001). ICT school portraits: Innovative ICT developments in schools. Den

Haag: Pallas Offset.

Braak, J. V., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer

use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of

Education, 19 (4), 407-422.

Britten, J.S., & Cassady, J.C. (2005). The technology integration assessment instrument:

Understanding planned use of technology by classroom teachers. Computers In

The Schools, 22(3/4), 49-61.

Britten, J.S., & Clausen, J.M. (2009). Cool tools, tough times: Maintaining a focus on

technology infusion. CAPEA Education Leadership and Administration, 21, 39-

45.

Burke, A. & Marsh, J. (Ed.). (2013). Children’s virtual play worlds: Culture, learning,

and participation. New York: Peter Lang.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through

qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Christiansen, R., & Knezek, G. (2008). Self-report measures and findings for

information technology attitudes and competencies. In International handbook of

110

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

information technology in primary and secondary education (eds J. Voogt & G.

Knezek), 397-417. Springer, New York, NY.

Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Beyond web 2.0: Mapping the

technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,

25(1), 56-69.

Common Sense Media (2012). Children, teens, and entertainment media: The view

from the classroom. Available at

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/children-teens-and-entertainment-

media-the-view-from-the-classroom

Common Sense Media (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013.

Available at https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-to-eight-

childrens-media-use-in-america-2013

Creswell, J.W., Hanson, W.E., Plano, V.L., & Morales, M. (2007). Qualitative research

designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2),

236-264.

Cuthell, J.P. (2006). Steering the supertanker: Transforming teaching and learning

through use of ICT. Computers in the Schools, 23(1), 99-110. de Koster, S. M., Kuipert, E., & Volmant, M. (2012). Concept-guided development of

ICT use in 'traditional' and 'innovative' primary schools: What types of ICT use do

schools develop? Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 454-464.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dunleavy, M., Heinecke, W., & Walter, F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student

to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of

111

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 440-452.

Eastin, M.S., Yang, M., & Nathanson, A.I. (2006). Children of the net: An empirical

exploration into the evaluation of Internet content. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 50(2), 211-230.

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.

Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot, Final Outcomes for a Four-Year

Study(2004-05 to 2007-08) (2009). Retrieved from

http://www.tasb.org/about/related/tcer/documents/etxtip/y4_etxtip_final.pdf

Erstad, O. (2012). The learning lives of digital youth-beyond the formal and informal.

Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 25-43.

Firat, M. (2013). Multitasking or continuous partial attention: A critical bottleneck for

digital natives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 266-272.

Fluck, A. & Dowden, T. (2013). On the cusp of change: Examining pre-service teachers'

beliefs about ICT and envisioning the digital classroom of the future. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 43-52.

Furlong, J., & Davies, C. (2012). Young people, new technologies and learning at

home: taking context seriously. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 45-62.

Garthwait, A.G., & Weller, H. G. (2005). A year in the life: Two seventh grade

teachers implement one-to-one computing. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 37(4), 361.

Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling.

London: Routledge.

112

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Golsan, J. (2014). The Current State of Digital Integration in Texas Public Schools.

Retrieved from http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2014-

01-PP05-CurrentStateOfDigitalIntegration-CEP-JamesGolsan.pdf

Grant, L. (2011). “I’m a completely different person at home”: Using digital

technologies at connect learning between home and school. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning,27(4), 292-302.

Guo, R.X., Dobson, R., & Petrina, S. (2008). Digital natives, digital immigrants: An

analysis of age and ICT competency in teacher education. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 38(3), 235-254.

Hammond, M., Reynolds, L., & Ingram, J. (2011). How and why do student teachers

use ICT? Journal of Computer Assisted Technology, 27(3), 191-203.

Hays, D. (2006). Making all the flashy stuff work: the role of the principal in ICT

integration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 565-578.

Hew, K. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current

knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational

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

Hinson, J.M. (2005). Investigating the perceptions and behaviors of elementary students

and teachers when Internet access is universal. Computers in Schools, 229 (1/2),

19-31.

Hughes, M., & Greenhough, P. (2006). Boxes, bags and videotape: enhancing home-to

school communication through knowledge exchange activities. Education

Review, 58(4), 471-487.

113

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Hsu, S. (2010). Developing a scale for teacher integration of information and

communication technology in grades 1-9. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 26,175-189.

Hung, D., Lee, S., & Lim, K.Y. (2012). Authenticity in learning for the twenty-first

century: Bridging the formal and the informal. Educational Tech Research

Development, 60(6), 1071-1091.

Ionita, M., & Asan, D. (2013). Looking for a teacher for “Digital natives.” The 9th

International Scientific Conference eLearning and software for Education.

Jubas, K. (2011). Everyday scholars: Framing informal learning in terms of academic

disciplines and skills. Adult Education Quarterly, 61(3), 225-243.

Judson, E. (2010). Improving technology literacy: Does it open doors to traditional

content? Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 271-284.

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

technology-focused professional development program. Journal of Research on

Technology In Education (International Society For Technology In Education),

37(3), 313-329.

Kent, N., & Facer, K. (2004). Different worlds? A comparison of young people’s home

and school ICT use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6), 440-455.

Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century:

What do we know about student’s attitudes towards and experiences of

information and communication technologies that will help us design courses?

Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 257-274.

114

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Kim, K., Jain, S., Westhoff, G., & Rezabek, L. (2008). A quantitative exploration of

preservice teachers’ intent to use computer-based technology. Journal of

Instructional Psychology, 35(3), 275-287.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational

technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge.

Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.

Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher

knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology.

Computers & Education, 49(3), 740-762.

Kuehn, L. (2012). No more “Digital natives” and “Digital immigrants.” Our

Schools/Out Selves, 21(2), 129-132.

Kurt, A.A., Gunuc, S., & Ersoy, M. (2013). The current state of digitalization: Digital

native, digital immigrant, and digital settler. Journal of Faculty of Educational

Services, 46(1), 1-22.

Lacovides, L. (2011). Digital games: Exploring the relationship between motivation,

engagement and informal learning. The Psychology of Education Review, 35(1),

21-24.

Lai, K.W., Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2013). Blending student technology

experiences in formal and informal learning. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 29(5), 414-425.

Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies.

International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5-20.

Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is

needed. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87-97.

115

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Lei, J.(2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship

between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 41(3), 455-472.

Levin, D., & Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between

Internet savvy students and their schools. Pew Internet & American Life Project:

Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-

media//Files/Reports/2002/PIP_Schools_Internet_Report.pdf.pdf

Li, Y., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Are ‘digital natives’ really digitally competent? A study of

Chinese teenagers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 1029-1042.

Liang, J.C., Chai, C.S., Koh, J.H.L., Yang, C.J., & Tsai, C.C. (2013). Surveying in-

service preschool teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 581-594.

Lieberman, D.A., Bates, C.H.,& So, J. (2009). Young children’s learning with digital

media. Computers in the Schools, 26(4), 271-283.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lopez, M. E., & Caspe, M. (2014). Family engagement in anywhere, anytime

learning. Family Involvement Network of Educators (FINE) Newsletter, 6(3).

Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-

publications/family-engagement-in-anywhere-anytime-learning

Maddock, M. (2006). Children’s personal learning agendas at home. Cambridge

Journal of Education, 36(2), 153-169.

Mayo, N.B., Kajs, L.T., & Tanguma, J. (2005). Longitudinal Study of Technology

Training to Prepare Future Teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 3-

15.

116

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Meabon-Bartow, S. (2014). Teaching with social media: Disrupting present day public

education. Educational Studies, 50(1), 36-64.

Merriam, S.B. (1991). Case study in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

O’Mara, J., & Laidlaw, L. (2011). Living in the iworld: Two literacy researchers on the

changing texts and literacy practices of childhood. English Teaching: Practice

and Critique, 10(4), 149-159.

O’Brien, D., & Scharber, C. (2010). Teaching old dogs new tricks: The luxury of

digital abundance. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(7), 600-603.

Oriji, A., Oriji, E., & Itonye, P. (2013). New technology, new methodology: The

“Digital natives” and “Digital immigrants” debate. Journal of Educational

Review, 6(2), 237-243.

Nzai, V. E., Feng, Y., & Reyna, C. (2014). Preparing net gen pre-service teachers for

digital native classrooms. Columbian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(2), 185-200.

Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U.(2008). Born digital understanding the first generation of

digital natives. New York, New York: Basic Books.

Pamuk, S. (2012). Understanding preservice teachers’ technology use through TPACK

framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 425-439.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2009, from

www.21stCenturySkills.org

Pascoe, C.J. (2012). Studying young people’s new media use: Methodological shifts and

educational innovations. Theory into Practice, 51(2),76-82.

117

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Pegler, K., Kollewyn, J., & Crichton, S. (2010). Generational attitudes and teacher ICT

use. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(3), 443-458.

Penuel, W.R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives:

A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3),

329-348.

Prensky, M. (2009). From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom.

Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3), 1-9.

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Retrieved from:

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-

%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001b). Do you really think differently? Retrieved from:

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-

%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

Prensky, M. (2014). The world needs a new curriculum. Retrieved from:

http://marcprensky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Prensky-5-The-

World_Needs_a_New_Curriculum.pdf

Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society. Retrieved from

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf

Ransdell, S., Kent, B., Gaillard-Kenney, S., & Long, J. (2011). Digital immigrants fare

better than digital natives due to social reliance. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 42(6), 931-938.

Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S.G., Lim, S., Lapinski, S., Robinson, K.H., &

Johnson, M. (2013). Universal design for learning and elementary school science:

118

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Exploring the efficacy, use, and perceptions of a web-based science notebook.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1210-1225.

Reich, S.M., Korobkova, K.A., Black, R.W., & Sumaroka, M. (2013). “Hey! Can you

show me how to do this?” In A. Burke & J. Marsh (Eds.), Children’s virtual

play worlds (pp.133-150). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Rikhye, R., Cook, S., & Berge, Z.L. (2009). Digital natives vs. immigrants: Myth or

reality. Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 6(2), 3-10.

Roblyer, M. D. (2000). The national educational technology standards (NETS): A

review of definitions, implications, and strategies for integrating NETS into K-12

curriculum. International Journal Of Instructional Media, 27(2),133-146.

Roblyer, M.D.& Doering (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching.

Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

Rogers, E.M., Medina, U. E., Rivera, M. A., & Wiley, C. J. (2005). Complex adaptive

systems and the diffusion of innovations. The Innovation Journal: The Public

Sector Innovation Journal, 10(3), 1-26.

Rosenberg, M.S., & Sindelar, P.T. (2005). The proliferation of alternative routes to

certification in special education: A critical review of the literature. The Journal

of Special Education, 39(2), 117-127.

Rye, A.R. (2009). Negotiating the symbolic power of information and communication

technologies (ICT): The spread of internet-supported distance education.

Information Technology for Development, 15(1), 17-31.

Saljo, R. (2003). Oppimine tegelikkuses: sotsiokultuuriline kasitlus. [Learning in

practice: A sociocultural perspective]. Voru, Estonia: AS Voru That.

119

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Schrand, T. (2008). Tapping into active learning and multiple intelligences with

interactive multimedia. College Teaching, 56(2), 78-84.

Sefton-Green, J.(2004). Literature review in informal learning with technology outside

of school REPORT 7 (Bristol, Futurelab).

Selwood, I., & Pilkington, R. (2005). Teacher workload: Using ICT to release time to

teach. Educational Review, 57(2),163-174.

Selwyn, N., Banaji, S., Hadjithoma-Garstka, C., & Clark, W. (2011). Providing a

platform for parents? Exploring the nature of parental engagement with school

learning platforms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4), 314-323.

Serhan, D. (2009). Preparing pre-service teachers for computer technology integration.

International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(4), 439-447.

Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2011). Using online video to support student learning and

engagement. College Teaching, 59(2), 56-59.

Smith, E.(2012). The digital native debate in higher education: A comparative analysis

of recent literature. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(3), 1-18.

Stevenson, H.J. (2004-2005). Teacher’s informal collaboration regarding technology.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 129-144.

Stevenson, O. (2011). From public policy to family practices: Researching the

everyday realities of families’ technology use at home. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 27(4), 336-346.

Stoerger, S. (2009). The digital melting pot: Bridging the digital native-immigrant

divide. First Monday, 14(7), 1-9.

Suell, J., & Piotrowski, C. (2006). Efficacy of alternative teacher certification programs:

A study of the Florida model. Education, 127(2), 310-315.

120

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Sutherland, R.P., Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Brawn, R., Breeze, N., Gall, M.,

Matthewman, S., Olivero, F., Taylor, A., Triggs, P., Wishart, J., & John, P.

(2004). Transforming teaching and learning: Embedding ICT into everyday

classroom practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6), 413-425.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Texas Education Agency (1999). A Longitudinal Study of Primary School Classrooms

and Grade 3 Performance in Texas Public Schools. STEPS Report 6B,

Publication Number GE00-601-02.Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Thomas, K.M., O'Bannon, B.W., & Bolton, N. (2013). Cell phones in the classroom:

Teachers' perspectives of inclusion, benefits, and barriers. Computers in the

Schools, 30(4), 295-308.

Tissington, L.D. (2008). A Bronfenbrenner ecological perspective on the transition to

teaching for alternative certification. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(4),

106-110.

Toledo, C.A. (2007). Digital culture: Immigrants and tourists responding to the native’s

drum beat. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,

19(1), 84-92.

Tondeur, J. P., Cooper, M., & Newhouse, C.P. (2010). From ICT coordination to ICT

integration: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,

26(4), 296-306.

Uibu, K., & Kikas, E. (2008). The roles of a primary school teacher in the information

society. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(5), 459-480.

121

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Vannatta, R.A., & Banister, S. (2008). The impact of assessing technology

competencies of incoming teacher education students. Computers in Schools,

25(1-2), 90-97.

Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom

technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253-271.

Vanslyke, T. (2003). Digital natives, digital Immigrants: Some thoughts from the

generation gap. Retrieved from

http://depd.wisc.edu/html/TSarticles/Digital%20Natives.htm

Voogt, J., Knezek, M., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2011). Under

Which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A

call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 1-11.

Watson, I.R. (2013). Digital natives or digital tribes? Universal Journal of Educational

Research, 1(2), 104-112.

Watson, J.A., & Pecchioni, L.L. (2011). Digital natives and digital media in the college

classroom: Assignment design and impacts on student learning. Educational

Media International, 48(4), 307-320.

Wilson, J.D., Notar, C. C., & Yunker, B. (2003). Elementary in-service teachers’ use of

computers in the elementary classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30

(4), 256-264.

Wiseman, C., & Taylor, L. (2015). Digital harmony or digital dissonance? Developing

literacy skills in the new technology age. In C. Ritchie (Ed.), Challenge and

change for the early years workforce (99-109). New York, NY: Routledge.

Xiao, L., &Carroll, J.M. (2007). Fostering an informal learning community ofcomputer

technologies at school. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(1), 23-36.

122

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Zhao, J. D. (2009). Faculty and student use of technologies, user productivity, and user

preference in distance education. Journal of Education for Business, 84(4), 206-

123

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

APPENDIX A: IRB EXEMPTION

February 2, 2015

Dr. Trenia Walker Curriculum & Instruction Mail Stop: 1071

Regarding: 504858 How Digital Native Elementary Teachers Use ICT to Teach Students Dr. Trenia Walker:

The Texas Tech University Protection of Human Subjects Committee approved your claim for an exemption for the protocol referenced above on February 2, 2015.

Exempt research is not subject to continuing review. However, any modifications that (a) change the research in a substantial way, (b) might change the basis for exemption, or (c) might introduce any additional risk to subjects must be reported to the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) before they are implemented.

To report such changes, you must send a new claim for exemption or a proposal for expedited or full board review to the HRPP. Extension of exempt status for exempt protocols that have not changed is automatic.

The HRPP staff will send annual reminders that ask you to update the status of your research protocol. Once you have completed your research, you must inform the HRPP office by responding to the annual reminder so that the protocol file can be closed.

Sincerely,

Rosemary Cogan, Ph.D., ABPP Protection of Human Subjects Committee

Box 41075 | Lubbock, Texas 79409-1075 | T 806.742.3905 | F 806.742.3947 | www.vpr.ttu.edu An EEO/Affirmative Action Institution

124

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

APPENDIX B: IRB PROPOSAL

A Descriptive Case Study: How Digital Native Elementary Teachers Use Information Communication Technology to Teach Students

Faculty PI: Dr. Trenia Walker Co-PI: Jan Williams

I. Rationale

Technology has changed the way we work, teach, and live. The support for technology in education has opened many doors for educators to teach students in a new way. The overall view of business, parents and community leaders is that through technology, students will be prepared for a highly technological future by the changes in the way teachers teach today. The process of teachers changing the way they teach and the role of technology has evolved over the better part of the last twenty years.

Many new and pre-service teachers find themselves teaching between two worlds of the ballpoint pen and the computer mouse (Fluck & Dowden, 2011). Teachers and students born in the later 1960’s are considered Digital Natives by Prensky (2001) and are a different generation when it comes to using digital media at home and in schools. Students born after 1994 have been raised in a world filled with the use of technology and do not remember at time without it.

School age children are very aware of digital media and use it at home to participate in many virtual activities. As students are more technology savvy, it becomes essential to integrate ICT into the classroom, “schools cannot lag behind and broaden the gap between life inside and outside of school” (Serhan, 2009).

According to the Golsan (2014) report, Texas public school children are more experienced in using Information Communication Technology on a daily basis than previous generations. So, putting students in a four-walled room with pencils and paper is like putting them in a time capsule and zapping them back into the past. It should come as no surprise that some students struggle with behavior and focus issues. When technology is properly implemented, teachers and administrators are seeing an increase in participation, an excitement for learning, and a more successful retention of knowledge (Golsan, 2014).

We all wonder what we would without computers and the accessibility to the jobs they perform for us. In fact, when the power goes out or we lose our “connection” we think about our tasks as falling behind. I am conducting this study to find out if DN teachers have increased the use of the computer and technology and how they perceive the “tech savvy” of their students. Educators will benefit from this study by knowing more about the amount of time teachers are spending on a variety of computer related tasks. This study will add to the small body of research on how DN teachers use digital technology in the classroom for a variety of purposes.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study was designed to gather information from the DN teacher's perspective to determine how they use digital media and determine if and how the experience of teaching DN students impacts the teachers teaching in the classroom?

Three research questions guide this study:

125

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

1. How proficient and confident do DN teachers (aged 20 years old to 34 years) feel about using ICT in and out of the classroom for varied activities?

2. What types of ICT do DN teachers (20 years old to 34 years) use to teach the tech savvy students in today’s classrooms?

3. How were the DN teachers prepared to use ICT? What type of college program did they attend (regular or ACP) and does it make a difference?

II. Participants

The participants for this study will be selected from teachers in an elementary school located in the Houston, Texas area. A purposeful sample of five teachers is optimal, although this study may be conducted with fewer participants. This study will be conducted with five teachers that respond and agree to participate. The inclusion criteria for the teachers to be included are that they must be currently employed by the school district, a teacher in an elementary class and use a computer during the course of the school day, and be between age 20 and 34. They will be recruited on a volunteer basis. They are purposefully selected because of their experience and competence (Merriam, 1998, p. 61).

III. Procedures

Participant Recruitment:

Participation will be voluntary and teachers who agree will complete an online survey. In addition, it will also explain the procedures to ensure that the researcher maintains confidentiality. Contact information of the researcher is also provided in the email.

This research study will only use adult participants who agree to complete a survey concerning how they approach digital technology use and agree to be interviewed.

The teachers will be recruited by following procedure:

1. The principal will announce the proposed study by sending the prepared email to teachers that are 20 to 34 years old (Attachment C). 2. Teachers who wish to be considered for inclusion in the case study will be directed to click a link in the email, which will lead them to an online survey. 3. Participation will be voluntary and teachers who agree will review a letter to the teacher (Attachment D) and an attached information sheet (Attachment E). 4. The teacher will complete the survey and indicate their permission to be interviewed.

The information sheet will explain the procedures to ensure that the researcher maintains confidentiality. No risks are foreseen for this research project beyond the risks of daily life. The participant will not benefit monetarily from this study.

Based on the responses, up to five teachers will be selected if they meet all of the following criteria: complete the teacher survey form, be currently employed by the school district, be between the ages of 20 and 34 years old, and have daily access to a computer in their classroom and use it on a daily basis.

Data Gathering Procedures: 126

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Once all of the necessary forms have been collected and the teachers have been selected, data gathering will begin approximately February 13, 2015 through March 13, 2015. Each of the five teachers in the sample will be asked questions (45 minute semi-structured interview scheduled at a convenient time either in their classroom or after school hours via Skype). A possible second interview may be scheduled by email or phone according to the teachers’ preference

To summarize the breakdown of data collection, there will be a maximum of five teacher surveys, initial interviews and audio recordings of the teacher interviews. The researcher will transcribe five digital recordings in order to use them in the data analysis process. Interviews will follow a semi-structured format that will allow deep thought questions to be asked during the interview process. Follow-up conversations to clarify or ask other questions about themes that emerge may be also scheduled with the participants. In addition to the interviews, the researcher will collect one lesson plan from each teacher and observe the teacher’s classrooms to identify the ICT and tools available for the teacher use.

To ensure confidentiality, all participants' names will be kept confidential and pseudonyms will be utilized during data analysis and reporting. All names will be deleted from documents prior to data analysis. The specific region of data collection will not be disclosed in the final reporting of the data. All data collected will be kept in a locked file cabinet at the Co- PI's residence, as this is where data analysis and reporting will occur. Data analysis and reporting will be completed on a password-protected computer. All identifiable data will be destroyed once data analysis is completed.

IV. Adverse Events and Liability

No risks are foreseen for this research project beyond the risks of daily life, therefore there is no liability plan offered.

V. Consent Form NA

References

Fluck, A. & Dowden, T., (2013). On the cusp of change: examining pre-service teachers' beliefs about ICT and envisioning the digital classroom of the future. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 43-52.

Golsan, J., (2014). The Current State of Digital Integration in Texas Public Schools. Retrieved from http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2014-01-PP05- CurrentStateOfDigitalIntegration-CEP-JamesGolsan.pdf

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Prensky, M., (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Retrieved from: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20- %20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

127

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Prensky, M., (2001b). Do you really think differently? Retrieved from: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20- %20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

Serhan, D., (2009). Preparing pre-service teachers for computer technology integration. International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(4), 439-447.

Attachments: A. Letter to Principal B. Email script for the Principal to send to teachers that meet the age criteria C. Letter to teacher D. Information Sheet for the teacher E. Teacher Questionnaire F. Script to schedule interview with the teacher G. Interview questions for the teacher

Attachment A: Letter to Principal

Principal,

Dear

My name is Jan Williams and I am a Doctoral Candidate at Texas Tech University. I am conducting a research project through Texas Tech as part of my dissertation process. My topic is digital native teachers using technology in their classrooms. I would like to conduct my research in classrooms in your school. In particular I wish to work with volunteer elementary level teachers.

If you agree I will begin the recruitment process. Participants will include teachers, who agree to participate. You will not know the identity of those participants who choose to participate in the study.

I would also like to observe the classrooms in which these participants work. These observations will take place during the spring semester of 2015. No identifying information will be recorded regarding individual students. The focus of these observations will specifically be the participants working in a regular classroom environment.

Thank you for your consideration of your school’s participation in this study. If you allow me to conduct my research in your school, please indicate by signing below.

Sincerely,

Jan Williams

I agree to allow Jan Williams to conduct research as outlined in the letter above.

Signature of Principal Date

Attachment B: Email script for the Principal to send to teachers who meet the age criteria

128

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

Jan Williams, a Doctoral Candidate in the College of Education at Texas Tech University has contacted me concerning a research project she is doing this semester. The purpose of the study will be to learn more about how teachers that are considered digital natives are using digital technology in the classroom. The Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board has approved this study for the Protection of Human Subjects. By clicking this link you will be taken to a survey, which will take about 30 minutes to complete online. You will also find an attachment with a letter to the teacher and an information sheet about the study. If chosen, you will be asked to participate in a 45-minute one-to-one interview.

To be considered you must meet these criteria: Currently teaching, have a computer in your classroom that you use on a daily basis, be between the ages of 20 and 34 and be willing to be interviewed.

If you would like to participate in the case study the following procedures will be followed.

1. The principal will announce the proposed study by sending the prepared email to teachers that are 20 to 34 years old. 2. Teachers that wish to be considered for inclusion in the case study will have the option to click a link in the email to the online survey. 3. A letter to the teacher as well as an information sheet for the teacher will be attached to the email. 3. The survey will be submitted digitally to the researcher’s private email established for the purpose of collecting the survey. 4. At the end of the survey, the participant will be asked if they are willing to be interviewed. 5. If a participant choses, to participate in the case study, the researcher will contact him/her to schedule a one to one interview.

Your confidentiality will be protected and no information will be gathered that could personally identify you.

Attachment C: Letter to Teacher

Dear ______

I am a Doctoral Candidate in the College of Education at Texas Tech University pursuing my PhD in Curriculum and Instruction. I am doing research to learn more about how digital native teachers feel about their current digital technology use in the classroom.

Attached is a short questionnaire asking questions that may help us to better understand this important topic. No information will be gathered that can personally identify you, other than your name, phone number and email, which you will provide so that I can contact you for an interview. This information will be destroyed along with the completed questionnaire after the case study has been completed.

After completing the online survey, you may be asked to participate in a one-to-one interview. If you participate, I will ask that you submit a lesson plan demonstrating the use of

129

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015 technology in your classroom. I will also conduct an observation of your classroom in order to see the technology available for your use in teaching.

I will contact you by phone or email to schedule an interview. We can meet for the interview in person on campus or by Skype, whichever is most convenient for you. Another interview may be requested to ask additional questions. As part of the interview process, an audio recording will be done so that I can review and transcribe your responses.

Thank you for your time and consideration in helping me answer these important questions. If you would like to participate in the case study, please do the following.

1. Click the link in the email 2. Complete the online survey about your classroom computer use 3. Indicate your willingness to be interviewed, submit a lesson plan and allow a classroom observation.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 936-827-2621 or Dr. Walker at 806-834-0666.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jan K. Williams Doctoral Candidate, Texas Tech University

Attachment D: Information Sheet Attached to the Teacher Email

Please share your thoughts of our research project.

What is this project studying? The study is called “A Case Study: How Digital Native Elementary Teachers Use Information Communication Technology to Teach Students.” This study will help us learn how Digital Native teachers’ thinking relates to their computer use in the classroom. What we learn may help people, and we hope to publish this study widely to make it as beneficial as possible.

What would I do if I participate? In this study, you will be asked to complete a survey and an interview. Some questions will be about you. Some questions will be about your thoughts of your computer use in the classroom. Some will relate to your actual computer time use during your school day. You would be asked to participate in one interview, with a possible second interview to answer addition questions. You will also be asked to submit a lesson plan showing how you use technology in a class. An observation in your classroom will identify the technology that you have available to use in your teaching. Your permission to digitally record the interview will be requested.

Can I quit if I become uncomfortable? Yes, absolutely. Dr. Walker and the Protection Board have reviewed the questions and think you can answer them comfortably. However, you can stop answering the questions at any time. You can leave any time you wish. Participating is your choice.

How long will participation take?

130

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

We are asking for 45 minutes of your time for a one-to-one interview and 30 minutes to complete a survey. Another interview may be requested to ask additional questions. I will contact you by phone or email to schedule an interview. We can meet for the interview in person on campus or by Skype, whichever is most convenient for you.

How are you protecting privacy?

Your name will only be used in order that I may contact you for an interview. Other information that is gathered for the case study will be destroyed along with the completed questionnaire after the case study has been completed.

I have some questions about this study. Who can I ask? Dr. Walker from the Department of Education, Curriculum and Instruction at Texas Tech University is directing this study. If you have questions, you can call her at 806-834-5165.

TTU also has a Board that protects the rights of people who participate in research. You can ask them questions at 806-742-2064. You can also mail your questions to the Human Research Protection Program, Office of the Vice President for Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409.

How will I benefit from participating? There will be neither benefits nor drawbacks to participate in this study.

Attachment E: Teacher Questionnaire

Answer the questions below to determine if you are a Digital Native. You may go to www. surveymonkey.com/---/ to complete the survey.

1. My birthday is post-1982? a. Yes b. No

2. When you need information, you: a. Pick up a newspaper, book, or journal. b. Google it on the Internet

3. If you need to install a program on your computer, you: a. Read the manual. b. Pop in the CD and let the installer wizard show you how

4. You are perfectly comfortable editing documents onscreen. a. I print it out first. b. Only way to go! c. Sometimes

5. You are at your best when you multi-task and parallel process. a. Can we just take it one at a time and step-by-step please? b. Bring it on, the more the merrier!

6. You stay connected through instant messengers, update your blog regularly, and have to have your regular fix of Everquest or Halo.

131

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

a. What was all that again? b. What else is there!

7. You perceive technology as: a. Something to be tolerated or harnessed, a tool. b. It’s how I work, communicate, play, and relax.

8. When you want to listen to music, you: a. Pop in an 8-Track cassette and boogie down. b. Hit an online music store and pull out your iPod

9. Do you know what the term “web 2.0” means? a. Yes b. No c. Should I?

10. Do you believe computer games can have educational value? a. Yes and I’ve used them for that purpose b. Yes, but not used them c. No

11. Would you be willing to be interviewed? a. Yes b. No

If you would like to participate in this case study please submit your contact information in order that I can contact you to arrange an interview time.

Name: ______Phone: ______

Email: ______

Attachment F: Script to Schedule Teacher Interview

Hello ______My name is Jan Williams. You are a teacher at ______. Is that correct? You recently completed a survey about a research project I am doing with teachers from your school. I would like to schedule a time that I could ask you some more questions about how you feel about using technology in your teaching. I would need about 30-40 minutes of your time. What would be a good time? Would you like for me to come to your school or would you like to meet using Skype? I look forward to meeting with you.

Attachment G: Interview Questions for the Teacher

The questions below are a framework to help guide the semi-structured interviews. Each participant will be asked to send a sample lesson plan that uses ICT prior to the face-to-face interview.

I. Background Information 1. Tell me about your educational background

132

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

2. How did you decide you wanted to be an educator? 3. How long have you been a classroom instructor? 4. What is your philosophy on teaching? 5. Tell me about the lesson plan you sent me via email? 6. What role does technology play in your teaching? 7. What brought the awareness of digital technology to your attention? 8. Describe your feelings when you first tried to implement digital technology in your classroom 9. Who is the most influential person on campus when it comes to determining how computers will be used in each school? How did that person influence your use or non- use of computers?

II. How proficient and confident do DN teachers (aged 20 years old to 34 years) feel about using ICT in and out of the classroom for varied activities?

1. How much time each week do you spend on the Internet for classroom purposes? 2. How much time each week do you spend on the computer, other than using the Internet, for classroom purposes? 3. How do you use the Internet for classroom purposes? 4. How do you use the computer for computer purposes? 5. What computer programs/skills are you currently proficient in using (other than games and tutorials)? 6. How do you find out about digital technologies that can be used in the classroom? 7. How do you decide if digital technology should be used in a lesson? Is there a process that you use? 8. Discuss the impact of class loads and time management on implementing computer- assisted instruction.

III. What types of ICT do DN teachers (20 years old to 34 years) use to teach the tech savvy students in today’s classrooms?

1. What types of digital technology do you utilize in your classroom? Why? 2. What software programs are installed on your hard drive? 3. What CD games or tutorial programs do you use? 4. How much time each week do your students spend on the computer assignments during class? Outside class? 5. Is it important to you to know about the experience your students have using different types of technology? How do you find out about their technology experience.

IV. How were the DN teachers prepared to use ICT? What type of college program did they attend (regular or ACP) and does it make a difference?

1. Describe the type of college program you completed to become a teacher? 2. What type of computer training have you completed?

133

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONS

Answer the questions below to determine if you are a Digital Native 1. My birthday is post-1982 a. Yes b. No 2. When you need information you: a. Pick up a newpaper, book, or journal b. Google it on the Internet 3. If you need to install a program on your computer, you: a. Read a manual b. Pop in the CD and let the installer wizard show you how 4. You are perfectly comfortable editing documents on screen a. I print it out first b. Only way to go! c. Sometimes 5. You are at your best when you multi-task and parallel process a. Can we just take it one at a time and step-by-step please? b. Bring it on, the more the merrier! 6. You stay connected through instant messengers, update your blog regularly, and have to have your regular fix of Everquest or Halo a. What was all that again? b. What else is there! 7. You perceive technology as: a. Something to be tolerated or harnessed, a tool b. It’s how I work, communicate, play, and relax 8. When you want to listen to music, you: a. Pop in an 8-track cassette and boogie down b. Hit an online music store and pull out your iPod 9. Do you know what the term “web 2.0” means? a. Yes b. No c. Should I? 10. Do you believe computer games can have educational value?

134

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

a. Yes and I’ve used them for that purpose b. Yes, but not used them c. No 11. Please give me your contact information if you would like to participate in this study a. Name b. Email c. Phone

135

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE TEACHERS

Teacher Interview Questions

I. Background Information 1. Tell me about your educational background.

2. How did you decide you wanted to be an educator?

3. How long have you been a classroom instructor?

4. What is your philosophy on teaching?

5. Tell me about the lesson plan you sent me via email?

6. What role does technology play in your teaching?

7. What brought the awareness of digital technology to your attention?

8. Describe your feelings when you first tried to implement digital technology in your classroom.

9. Who is the most influential person on campus when it comes to determining how computers will be used in each school?

How did that person influence your use or non-use of computers?

II. How proficient and confident do DN teachers (aged 20 years old to 34 years) feel about using ICT in and out of the classroom for varied activities?

1. How much time each week do you spend on the Internet for classroom purposes?

2. How much time each week do you spend on the computer, other than using the Internet, for classroom purposes?

3. How do you use the Internet for classroom purposes?

4. How do you use the computer for computer purposes?

5. What computer programs/skills are you currently proficient using (other than games and tutorials)?

6. How do you find out about digital technologies that can be used in the classroom?

136

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

7. How do you decide if digital technology should be used in a lesson? Is there a process that you use?

8. Discuss the impact of class loads and time management on implementing computer-assisted instruction.

III. What types of ICT do DN teachers (20 years old to 34 years) use to teach the tech savvy students in today’s classrooms?

1. What types of digital technology do you utilize in your classroom? Why?

2. What software programs are installed on your hard drive?

3. What CD games or tutorial programs do you use?

4. How much time each week do your students spend on the computer assignments during class?

5. Is it important to you to know about the experience your students have using different types of technology?

IV. How were the DN teachers prepared to use ICT? What type of college program did they attend (regular or ACP) and does it make a difference?

1. Describe the type of college program you completed to become a teacher.

2. What type of computer training have you completed?

137

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

APPENDIX D: CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THE TEACHER

Additional Questions for Teachers:

After transcribing your answers to my first set of questions others have come up. If you would please answer these additional questions for me and send back by email I would appreciate it.

As always, I so appreciate your help with this project.

Jan Williams

Questions:

1. When you were a student in school (elementary, middle, high or college) what technology do you remember being used?

2. What technology devices do you have personally now and how proficient do you feel you are using them?

3. If you had a student teaching experience, what training/introduction did you have for the technology you were expected to use?

4. Did the training/introduction (in student teaching) help you feel more confident with the technology demands of your current classroom?

5. How do parents feel about the technology you are using? Do they make comments?

6. Discuss the purposes for technology as you see it in your teaching.

138

Texas Tech University, Jan K. Williams, August 2015

APPENDIX E: TIAI

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION ASSESSMENT INSTUMENT 60 APPENDIX Technology Integration Assessment Instrument

Dimension Technology not present Non-essential Supportive technology Essential technology technology component component component Computer is essential to Uses computer to plan for planning of lesson (e.g., lesson. WebQuest). Planning (materials, No mention of technology. Uses technology in lesson equipment, etc.) not related to the Makes mention of Equipment and technologies addressed standards. necessary equipment and are built into lesson design technologies for replication and objectives, and are purposes. discussed within the context of the lesson and not as an external component. No mention of technology. Uses computer to plan for Uses technology supports Technology use in the Standards (content OR lesson. or promotes the acquisition lesson is directly linked to standards per grade No mention of content of standards in the lesson, one or more standards, level and content area) standards. but is not directly tied to making acquisition of that the standard itself. standard possible. NETS are present but not NETS are present but not identified or embedded identified or embedded Standards (NETS-S) No mention of technology. into lesson as a learning into lesson as a learning NETS are present and OR goal. goal. integrated into grade-level No mention of NETS. appropriate learning goals. NETS addressed are not NETS are grade-level up to expected grade level. appropriate. Technology is the only Technology is not used in Technology can be means by which this an adaptable fashion. modified by the teacher or lesson can be adapted to Attention to student No mention of technology. All students use same student to meet the needs meet the needs of needs technology tool or of students from diverse students from diverse complete same backgrounds. backgrounds; that is, the technology-based activity. technology tool or activity is designed to be adaptive.

Technology is not Learning is impacted in Technology impacts Implementation (use of No mention of technology. expected to directly impact time, quality, or wealth of learning by presentation, technology in learning) learning. resources by the use of product, or process. technology. Equipment and technologies are built into lesson design and Lesson is facilitated with objectives and are Lesson uses technology technology, but learning discussed within the Implementation (use of No mention of technology. but does not impact goals could be achieved context of the lesson and technology in teaching) implementation (product- without technology in place not as an external oriented technology). (process-oriented and/or component. product-oriented technology). Lesson requires the use of technology (process and product are dependent upon technology). Technology products Technology-based product and/or processes are is assessed, or technology directly assessed, or Technology is not used in application is used to assessment relies upon No mention of assessment. the assessment deliver and/or score the the use of technology for Assessment OR component (neither the assessment instrument. delivery or collection. No mention of technology. use of technology nor a However, similar Identified assessment product of technology). assessment could be could not be conducted replicated without without technology. technology. NETS are identified as part of assessment.

139