rogerkeithmabe.weebly.comrogerkeithmabe.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/3/3/17339467/m… · web...
TRANSCRIPT
Technology in the High School Curriculum:Barriers to Integration
byRoger Keith Mabe
An Applied Dissertation Submitted to theAbraham S. Fischler School of Educationin Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
Nova Southeastern University2012
Approval Page
This applied dissertation was submitted by Roger Keith Mabe under the direction of the persons listed below. It was submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler School of Education and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education at Nova Southeastern University.
Jared Bucker, Ph.D. DateCommittee Chair
Ronald Buelow, Ed.D. DateCommittee Member
Program Professor Review DateApplied Research Center
Ronald P. Kern, PhD DateAssociate Dean
ii
Abstract
Technology in the High School Curriculum. Roger Keith Mabe, 2014. Applied Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Abraham S. Fischler School of Education. Technology, Curriculum, High Schools, Barriers, Integration.
Technology has permeated every aspect of our daily lives. The classroom is no exception as teachers have spent countless hours preparing for the integration of technology. Teachers are a key ingredient in the integration of technology into the high school curriculum.
Classrooms across the country are being retrofitted with computers, electronic Smart Boards, projectors, and electronic test-taking tools. Literature on the integration of technology into the classroom is inadequate to determine how far the integration of technology into the high school has actually progressed.
This qualitative study addressed the lack of integration of technology in the high school curriculum. The study concluded that technology has not been successfully integrated into the high school curriculum.
This problem is exacerbated by a number of intricate and complex barriers which inhibit the teacher to incorporate new technology. Results from the study showed that there was little connection between technology integration and teachers use of technology in their personal life. Key findings from the study showed that a set of factors including non-availability of equipment, lack of pre-service training, authentic learning experiences, size of school district, and threatening technology equipment were the common experiences that teachers cited as preventing them from integrating technology into their curriculum.
This study provides strategies and techniques for incorporating new technology within their curriculum. It is directed to classroom teachers, professional development trainers, and administrators in the schools. If teachers are adequately prepared for the integration of technology in the classroom, students will ultimately benefit from enhanced learning experiences. They will also become more engaged in the learning process and the role itself of the teacher will evolve into more of a co-learner and facilitator and education will become more student-centered.
iii
Table of Contents
PageChapter 1: Introduction........................................................................................................2
Topic........................................................................................................................2Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................2Background and Justification...................................................................................3Qualitative Research Method...................................................................................7Audience..................................................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study................................................................................................8Definition of Terms..................................................................................................8
Chapter 2: Literature Review...............................................................................................9Methodology............................................................................................................9
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………..10Research Studies....................................................................................................11Models of Integration…..……………………………………………………...…22Summary................................................................................................................39Research Questions................................................................................................39
Chapter 3: Methodology....................................................................................................40Aim of Study..........................................................................................................40Design....................................................................................................................40Participants.............................................................................................................41Data Collection Tools............................................................................................43Procedures..............................................................................................................44Data Analysis.........................................................................................................47Ethical Considerations...........................................................................................48Trustworthiness......................................................................................................48Research Bias.........................................................................................................49Limitations.............................................................................................................50
Chapter 4: Findings............................................................................................................51Xxxxxxxxxxx xx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx....................................................................
Xxxxxx xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx..................................................................................... Xxxxxx xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx..................................................................................... Xxxxxx xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx.....................................................................................
Chapter 5: Discussion........................................................................................................53Xxxxxxxxxxx xx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx....................................................................
Xxxxxx xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx..................................................................................... Xxxxxx xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx.....................................................................................
Xxxxxxxx xx Xxxx....................................................................................................iv
References..........................................................................................................................54
AppendicesA Personal Interview Questions.........................................................................63B Title in Initial Caps and Lower Case .................................................................
Tables1 Levels of Technology Implementation Model ...............................232 Instructional Evolution Technology Model........................................253 Diffusion of Innovation Model ……….
…………………………………….264 Concerns-Based Adoption Model ………..
………………………………...285 Concerns-Based Technology Model……………………...
…………………296 Learning to Use Technology
Model……………………………………...…307 Project Pre-Service Infusion of Computer Technology
Model……………..328 Five Stage Model for Computer Technology Integration into
Teacher Education Curriculum……………………….…………………..…34
9 Technology Integration Matrix (TIM)…….………………………………...37
Figures1 Title in Initial Caps and Lower Case-Begin a Second Line Directly Below
the First Line………….………………………………………………………..2 Title in Initial Caps and Lower Case………………………………………….
v
2
Chapter 1: Introduction
Topic
Technology has permeated every aspect of our daily lives. The classroom is no exception
as teachers have spent countless hours preparing for the integration of technology. The
integration of technology into the school curriculum is assumed to be a key ingredient in
revolutionizing the educational system (Albirini, 2006). Pelgrum, Janssen-Reinen, and Plomp
(2001) noted that the integration of technology is not only assumed to be the backbone of “the
Information Age, but the catalyst and tool for introducing educational reform that changes the
role of teachers forever and produces students into productive knowledge workers” (p. 2).
Noronha of The Guardian states that the purpose of technology in the schools should be to
augment the teaching experience with hands-on personalized activities that will not only engage
students, but change the role of the teacher to a facilitator (Noronha, 2012). Prensky (2008)
agrees but states it a slightly different way in that the role of technology in the classrooms is to
support the new teaching paradigm. That is, technology’s role−and its only role−should be to
support students teaching themselves “with of course, their teachers’ guidance” (p. 1).
Most educators are now convinced that there is a place for technology in the classroom
and that public schools must ensure that students have access to technology in the classroom in
order to prepare our children for the 21st century learning environment (CEO Forum, 2000). In
2000, the National Center for Educational Statistics found in a national survey, that nearly all
public school teachers reported having computers available exclusively for teachers somewhere
in their schools (United States Department of Education, 2002).
Statement of the Problem
3
Technology in the classroom is more than using a piece of hardware or proficiency with a
software program. Technology is often being used for technology’s sake, instead of being used to
facilitate and enhance the learning experiences of the students in the classroom (Herrell &
Jordan, 2007). In many classrooms, technology is being used to do little more than to support an
already existing program, such as PowerPoint or Word, and read as a lecture (Dunn & Rakes,
2010). Donnelly, McGarr, and O’Reilly (2010) found that many teachers, who were using a
software program such as PowerPoint, would simply take it and use it, but not adapt it to their
unique circumstances. In addition, some educators are concerned that this misuse of technology
will jeopardize content delivery because teachers have not been adequately prepared or trained to
incorporate technology within their curriculum (Zhao & Bryant, 2006).
The problem to be studied is the lack of integration of technology in the high school
curriculum. Keengwe, Onchwari, and Wachira (2008) in their research on technology integration
in education, concluded that technology had not been successfully integrated into the public
schools.
This problem is exacerbated by a number of intricate and complex factors which act as
barriers to the incorporation of new technology into schools. In a seminal qualitative study in the
Texas high schools, Zuniga (2010) found that non-availability of equipment, lack of pre-service
training, authentic learning experiences, size of school district, and fear of technological
equipment were the common experiences that teachers cited as preventing them from integrating
technology into their curriculum. Later studies focused on the personal attributes of the teachers
as the possible solution for successfully integrating technology into the curriculum.
Background and Justification
4
Investment. Billions of dollars are being spent retrofitting classrooms across the country
with computers, electronic Smart Boards, projectors, and electronic test-taking tools. The United
States Department of Education (2007) suggests that more than $7.8 billion was spent by local,
state, and federal agencies during 2003-2004 towards putting technology in the classroom. The
federal government has invested almost $3 billion between 2002 and 2006 according to the
United States Office of Management and Budget (2007). Gabriel and Richtel (2011) in a recent
NY Times article reported that almost $3 billion was spent on educational technology in 2010 and
that amount is expected to increase substantially over the next decade. Educational leaders insist
that it is crucial that we use such technologies in targeted and thoughtful ways that ensure scarce
education funding is spent on technological interventions that truly improve teaching and
learning (United States Department of Education, 2012).
Policy. The adoption of a national education policy–“Public Law 107-110. No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001”–puts focus on proven instruction and methods including technological
tools in the schools, but the theory of No Child Left Behind is different from previous national
educational policies. Whereas funding was provided to low income schools to try and improve
their students’ scores on standardized tests, resources are now viewed as incentives to
educational reform.
Goals within Part D of that Act, “Enhancing Education Through Technology,”
encouraged the effective integration of technology resources and systems within teaching
training and curriculum programs so that they can be implemented as best practices by state and
local educational agencies (United States Department of Education, 2002). State implementation
of the Act’s requirements has varied. Some states have sued the Department of Education for
more money to cover resources and programs. Many states have lobbied for more funds to be
5
allocated for technology and other needs. Others have rejected the backbone of the Act stating
that it trespasses on state sovereignty. The No Child Left Behind Act does take a very strong
position in every state and local school district relative to the implementation of technology into
the curriculum.
In response to the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,” Florida (the site of the proposed
study) has adopted its own “Florida Sunshine State Standards for Students” which incorporates
standards and guidelines that teachers can use to integrate technology within their curriculum
(Florida Department of Education, 2008b). For example, guidelines for language arts in high
school expect teachers to design and integrate technology within their curriculum so that students
can incorporate multimedia and other forms of technology into their presentations (Burke, 2001).
What Florida has not done that some other southern states is to actually develop and identify the
technological competencies that teachers must incorporate within their curriculum so that
students can meet minimum graduation requirements in technology (Burke, 2001).
The Florida Department of Education also administers a survey that provides information
on the integration of technology within the classroom. The optimal learning environment would
be where technology can be integrated seamlessly throughout all curriculums and promote
higher-order thinking skills. On average, the latest survey during 2007-2008 reported that
approximately only one-third of schools have met the goal: elementary schools (33%),
middle/junior schools (32%), and high schools (32%) (Florida Department of Education, 2008a).
This survey clearly shows that there is much work to be done to integrate technology within the
Florida public school system and its curriculum.
Standards. To assist in the integration of technology into the curriculum, the
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE®) has developed technology standards
6
for both teachers and students. ISTE®, founded in 1979, is the primary source for professional
development, knowledge generation, advocacy, and leadership for innovation in technology
(International Society for Technology in Education, 2011). These standards aim to develop and
articulate a vision of the role of technology in school improvement, the inclusion of technology
across the curriculum, and the implementation of technology infrastructure (International Society
for Technology in Education, 2011). These standards are voluntary and provide no enforcement
mechanisms.
Additional standards for integrating technology have been developed by The National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE®), which is a professional
organization to help states improve and integrate professional standards to prepare teachers in the
United States. For example, in the technology area, NCATE® recognizes that the use of
technology for instruction and assessment is a vital component of any college teacher preparation
program (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2012).
Proof. It has been proven by some researchers that technology can deepen and enhance
the learning experiences of students and also improve teacher instruction and efficacy (Sinclair,
2009). Teachers, however, need to be adequately trained as to how to use technology and
integrate it into their specific curriculum in order to enhance the learning experiences.
Teachers are the crucial element as to whether students will actually show learning gains.
If adequately trained and provided sufficient support, teachers can use technology to enhance
students’ communication and collaboration; improve the quality of instructional activities;
improve students’ organizational skills; enhance students’ motivation; and increase students’
autonomous learning (Sinclair, 2009). These findings were also supported by an earlier qualitative
study conducted by researchers Cakir, Delialioglu, Dennis, and Duffy (2009).
7
In order for technology to be successfully integrated however, it must be invisible and in
the appropriate place and time. Kim, Lee, Merrill, Spector, and van Merrienboer (2008) state that
“technology is successfully integrated into learning and instruction when the interest and focus
are not on the technology but rather on that which the technology makes possible–the affordance
(e.g., the dialog itself in a video-based dialog via the Internet or formulation and testing of a
hypothesis in a Web-based interactive simulation” (p. 811). Technology use must also always be
in support of the individual teacher’s curriculum goals (Cakir, Delialioglu, Dennis, & Duffy,
2009).
Qualitative Research Method
The proposed study will use a qualitative method to explore the teacher’s perceptions,
thoughts, beliefs, and experiences about the integration of technology. This will help to provide
strategies and techniques for incorporating technology within their curriculum. The nature of this
study is phenomenological in that it is intended to bring forth an understanding of the
perspectives of each participants based on the lived experiences of the integration of technology
in their curriculum (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). Technology integration is a shared human
experience and can only be fully understood through a phenomenological approach (Zuniga,
2010).
Through a series of in-depth open-ended questions with high school teachers, this
researcher will explore the factors of integration of technology within their curriculum. The
questions will have no specific answer in mind so as to allow this researcher to fully explore the
depth of their knowledge on integration of technology and their views towards its utilization
within their curriculum (Creswell, 2012).
Audience
8
This study is directed to classroom teachers, professional development trainers, and
administrators in the schools. These are the people who need additional support in order to make
technology effectively work in the classroom. If teachers are adequately prepared for the
integration of technology in the classroom, students will ultimately benefit from enhanced
learning experiences. They will also become more engaged in the learning process and the role
itself of the teacher will evolve into more a co-learner and facilitator (ISTE®, 2011).
Purpose of the Study
Basis of Knowledge. The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the views of high
school teachers in Miami Dade County Public Schools as to why technology has not been
successfully integrated into their curriculum. This research will provide insight into teacher
perspectives which are considered crucial to the integration of technology in the schools
according to Li (2007). Simonsson (2004) and Zuniga (2010) also suggested that there exists a
set of barriers that teachers could identify, such as past education, training, beliefs, and attitudes;
and that these were central to the understanding of the status of technology within their
curriculum.
Definitions of Terms
For purposes of this study, the term technology refers to desktop computers, laptop
computers, electronic Smart Boards, audio-visual equipment and peripheral devices connected to
such computers via a direct connection, network connection, or a wireless connection.
Technology also includes activities conducted with the aforementioned devices, including but
not limited to exchanging electronic mail; conducting Internet searches; creating multi-media
presentations; and, administering assessment and test taking evaluations (Zuniga, 2010).
9
The definition of technology integration used for this study is one provided by Dias in
1999 but is still relevant for this study today. Technology integration is the bringing together or
incorporating in a seamless manner the technological tools to support and extend curriculum
objectives and to engage students in meaningful learning (Dias, 1999).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Methodology
Organization. This literature review is organized into five major sections. The first
section provides an introduction to the literature review. The second section provides the
theoretical framework for this study. The third section presents an analysis of existing research
studies of the integration of technology into schools. The fourth section provides models for
adoption of the integration of technology. A summary of the literature review is presented in the
final section.
Selection. Research-based sources were used for this literature review. Full-text peer-
reviewed journal articles were the primary sources. In addition, some sections of books on the
subjects of technology in the classroom and curriculum planning were also reviewed for
relevance to the topic. All sources were derived from the primary education database of ERIC.
Because the integration of technology is such a recent phenomenon, the literature review
begins in the early 1990’s when computers were first introduced into the public schools. Most of
the research studies in this area occurred between years 2000 and 2007 in response to more
computers being placed in the schools by both the federal and state governments. Recent studies
10
from 2010-2012 were included to discuss barriers to the successful integration of technology into
the curriculum.
Criteria. Key terms researched on ERIC included technology integration, instructional
technology, media, curriculum, classroom, adoption models, and teacher attitudes and
perceptions. In addition, The United States Department of Education, ISTE®, and NCATE®
sites provided documentation on technology standards and spending in the schools.
Deficiencies. According to the literature, technology integration into the public schools
has been going on for more than 40 years (Suppes & Searle, 1971). There is no dearth of recent
research studies on the topic, either; an initial literature search located more than 4,500 articles
and publications that reference integration of technology into schools.
Confining that research to high schools limited the information available to 2,000
citations in the ERIC database. When the inquiry was narrowed more by only looking at the
integration of technology into the high school curriculum, gaps in the literature become obvious
and point the way for further research. Fewer than 800 articles and publications in the ERIC
database reference technology integration into the high school curriculum. Little is known about
how far the intregration of technology has progressed in the high school curriculum. This
proposal seeks to address the deficieinces of information about how far the integration of
technology into the high school curriculum has progressed and the reasons it has not.
Future Direction. This research needs to focus on understanding the status of technology
integration within the high school curriculum. As indicated in the deficiencies discussion, little
research is being done in this area. Also, research in technology integration on the high school
level needs to show how it is actually being utilized by the teacher. Is technology being utilized
to support teachers’ curriculum goals or is it merely being used for technology’s sake. Finally,
11
research needs to identify both organizational and personal barriers that block successful
integration of technology into the teachers’ curriculum.
Theoretical Framework
Social constructivism theory. The need to integrate technology within the teacher’s
curriculum is grounded in the theory of social constructivism. This theory was proposed by
Vygotsky in 1978 and explains why social interaction plays such a major role in the development
of cognition (Vygotsky, 1978). Micheletto (2011) adds that that people construct their own
knowledge of the outside world through experiences and then create reflections of those
experiences in order to learn. In other words, learning is a social process in which the individual
must participate (Vygotsky, 1978).
The constructivism perspective according to Golding (2011) is that learning is a process
of interpreting and organizing bits of pieces of information into useful meaningful units.
According to the constructivism theory, knowledge is not fixed and waiting to be acquired;
rather, students must be interactive and become primary actors in the process (Micheletto, 2011).
Authentic learning activities require high-level skills, and the use of technology in the curriculum
has the capability to be a tool teachers can use to help students construct this knowledge
(Keengwe, Pearson, & Smart, 2009).
Constructivist classroom. Teachers who make use of an effective constructivist
classroom can encourage high levels of thinking; engage students in experiences that challenge
hypotheses and encourage discussion; and use raw data, primary sources and interactive
materials, such as computers, audio visual equipment, and other electronic devices (Micheletto,
2011). Technology is not an end to itself, however, as it cannot replace the role of the teacher. It
12
has not transformed the way students learn or revolutionized the academic setting yet (Howard,
2009).
Micheletto (2011) shares a view of constructivism where teachers actually have an
integral role in the processing and acquisition of knowledge for students (Micheletto, 2011). As
applied to this study, the constructivism theory suggests that the goals of technology within
teachers’ curriculum should be to improve teaching and to enhance student learning (Petko,
2011).
Research Studies
According to the literature, various studies have been conducted towards the
understanding of the level of integration of computer technology (Casey & Rakes, 2002).
Coming from these studies are various models and theories relating to the level of integration of
technology within the schools. Also stemming from these studies are various perspectives and
views of both barriers and facilitators which are integral to the integration of technology.
ADDD LITERATURE ISSUES.
Computers first use in schools. Cuban (1994) first characterized the use of computers in
schools as a marginal, but an expanding activity in schools. In the early 1990s, he questioned
whether public schools should continue investing in technology and encouraging their teachers to
employ it in their practices when monies could be directed toward other areas of instruction
(Cuban, 2001). He suggested that the monies that were being used to retrofit technology into the
13
schools could be spent on teacher salaries, renovation of school facilities, and other initiatives
that might result in a better return for the initial investment (Cuban, 2001). Along with Cuban,
researchers in early studies in the 1990s looked at teacher training, level of resources, teacher
pedagogy, and practices, but questioned the monies being spent on computers and their use by
teachers (Cavas, 2005; Cox, Preston, & Cox, 1999).
From 1987 to 1993 the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement conducted studies in Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal,
Slovenia, Switzerland, and the United States. Findings of these studies suggested that the number
of computers in schools increased greatly during this time due in part to government initiatives
and the push for technology in the schools. These studies also found that there was a positive
relationship between the levels of professional development provided to teachers and the level of
integration occurring in their classroom (International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement, 2005).
Increased government funding pushed schools to incorporate. Roblyer and Edwards
(2000) suggested that there were five major reasons why teachers started to use technology in the
schools in the early 2000s: (1) motivation, (2) distinctive instructional abilities, (3) higher
productivity of teachers, (4) essential skills for the information age, and (5) support for new
teaching techniques.
Another study conducted by Becker (2000) investigated over 4,000 teachers’
instructional practices and their use of computer technology in the classroom. The study also
explored teachers’ philosophies concerning the introduction of new technology in their
classrooms and found that computer technology integration was more prevalent in situations
14
where there were adequate numbers of computers in the actual classroom as compared to the
computer lab (Becker, 2000). These early studies recognized for the first time that the actual lack
of computer technology could function as a barrier to the integration of computer technology into
the classroom.
The amount of studies looking at the integration of technology in the schools increased
substantially in the early 2000s as government funding and polices encouraged the integration of
technology in the classroom. Cuban, Kirkpatrick and Peck (2001) conducted a study of teachers
at two Northern California high schools in 1998 and 1999. Not in total agreement with other
early studies, the researchers found a very important factor in the integration of technology in the
schools. They found that access to computer technology rarely led to high levels of integration in
the schools (Cuban, et al., 2001). The researchers also found that computers were rarely used for
innovative purposes. Furthermore, the researchers reported that the integration of computer
technology would change education and teaching at a very slow pace. In fact, the researchers
suggested that the teaching found in the classrooms of 2050 would be very similar to the
teaching found at the time the study was conducted (Cuban, et al., 2001).
A study conducted by Dawson and Rakes (2003) investigated whether principals who had
received computer technology training would affect the level of integration of computers in their
respective schools. The researchers showed that principals who had computer technology
training could serve as models for integration of computer technology in their schools. Not
surprisingly, the study also found that these principals could give support to novice teachers
increasing the level of computer integration in these teachers’ classrooms.
During the next year (2004), a study was conducted with more than 1,000 kindergarten
through twelfth grade (K-12) teachers from across the United States, by CDW, a private
15
corporation that provides technology products and services to businesses, government, and
education. The findings of this study argued that computer technology had been integrated at a
high level into public schools and that teachers wanted more computers and more technology-
specific training in order to be effective (CDW, 2004). In fact, the survey found that 93 % of
teachers considered classroom-based computers to be either “very useful” or “somewhat useful”
(CDW, 2004). This survey brought attention to the fact that teaches now saw the computer as a
tool to learn and that it had to be as transparent as possible. According to the CDW (2004), that
transparency reflected a maturation process for the use of technology in schools and indicated
that technology was being successfully integrated into the school curriculum.
A later study conducted by CDW in 2005, however, did not show that the level of
technology integration had reached a truly satisfactory level in the schools. The first finding
showed that the use of computer technology had changed the role of teaching. The second
finding indicated that a little over 50% of the teachers had integrated computer technology into
the classroom. Third, although technology was increasing, it was more effectively being used for
administrative tasks, rather than in curricular practices. Finally, teachers participating in this
study recommended that funding for technology in the schools should be increased (CDW,
2005).
Barriers to integration identified. In 2006, Hew and Brush (2007) reviewed studies that
had been conducted between 1996 and 2006 concerning the level of integration of technology in
the schools. They attempted to pull together the factors that teachers saw as keeping them from
fully integrating technology into their curriculum. One hundred twenty-three barriers were
identified by the researchers of these studies. These barriers were classified into six distinct
groupings: resources, knowledge and skills, institution, attitudes and beliefs, assessment, and
16
subject culture. The strategies suggested by these researchers to overcome the barriers included a
shared vision coupled with a technology plan, the securing of additional resources, the changing
of attitudes and beliefs, the provision of additional pre-service and staff development, and the re-
evaluation of technology integration assessments (CDW, 2005).
A study published in 2007, focused on interviewing 17 high school social studies
teachers that had recently completed statewide curriculum-based computer technology
integration training. The findings of this study were contradictory to some earlier studies on the
importance of pre-service training. Zhao (2007) found that teachers who had completed the
curriculum-based computer technology pre-service training did not significantly increase the
level of computer technology integration into their classrooms. Zhao’s study also showed an
even more important finding concerning technology integration. The positive experiences that
teachers had with computer technology did not guarantee that computer technology integration
would occur in the classroom by more than those who had no prior computer experiences (Zhao,
2007).
Cavas, Cavas, Karaoglan, and Kisla (2009) concluded in a Turkish study that while
teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of technology did not differ regarding gender, it did
differ regarding home computer ownership and computer experience. Many teachers are
provided technology without consideration of their attitudes and computer expertise. These
factors were found to be crucial in determining the level of integration of technology and if not
identified prior to use of new technology, could be potential barriers to its successful integration
(Cavas, et al., 2009). In confirmation, Dupagne and Krendel (1992) observed that teachers'
negative attitudes changed after receiving formal computer training.
17
Comprehensive studies of technology integration began. A study in Taipei
investigated the barriers teachers were experiencing with technology instruction integration in
2010. Lin and Lu (2010) found that most teachers in their study predominantly used technology
before (preparing) and after (evaluating) rather than during actual instruction in the classroom.
The research reported that many of the teachers did not have clear understanding of what they
may have learned from previous software related training or hard technology training.
Furthermore, many of the teachers in this study questioned whether the training could
successfully be transferred to their teaching (Lin & Lu, 2010). The higher self-efficacy of
technology instruction teachers perceived, the more opportunities they saw for integrating the
technology. As a result, more time and higher commitment would be seen by those teachers and
the level of integration would be higher. Lin and Lu (2010) concluded that more workshops and
more life-like training would assist teachers in integrating higher levels of technology into their
teaching.
Teachers’ values and beliefs can be inferred from what they say, intend and do (Rokeach,
1968). Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, and Ertmer attempted to validate this concept
using technology integration in todays’ technology rich environment. The researchers concluded
in a phenomenological study of eight high school teachers that unless teachers believe a
technological application is valuable, they will not utilize or incorporate the application into their
practices, creating a potential barrier to its integration (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, et al., 2010). The
study confirmed that teachers in the study used technology to address both professional and
student needs that aligned only with their own personal values and beliefs.
One of the most important and comprehensive contributions to the understanding of the
integration of technology in the classroom was a study conducted by Zuniga in a public school
18
district in Texas in 2010. Zuniga (2010) suggested in his study–“Computer Technology
Integration Into the Public Classroom: A Qualitative Update”–that the level of integration of
technology in the classroom is uneven and that teachers can identity which factors are barriers
and which factors are facilitators to the integration of technology in the classroom. Thirty
teachers in three different-sized school districts were interviewed in order to assess the
integration of technology. In addition, school administrators and educational personnel were
interviewed to expand the research study to look at views of non-teachers in the integration of
technology.
Lack of training. The number one factor cited by teachers as a barrier to integration was
lack of training by the respective school district (Zuniga, 2010). Donnelly, McGarr, and O’Reilly
(2010) concurred with Zuniga that a teacher’s pre-service educational training was a significant
factor in determining the level of technology use in the classroom.
Unavailability of equipment. Zuniga (2010) added that lack of time and the actual
availability of equipment also acted as barriers to integration. In order to make full use of
technology, a computer or a similar electronic device had to be available and readily accessible
throughout the day. Teachers said that they would not go to a lab or a central office to make use
of technology (Zuniga, 2010). A research study conducted by Dror (2008) stated that the right
equipment was also absolutely necessary to insure utilization and that teachers must feel
comfortable with the equipment in order to utilize it.
Size of school district. Twenty percent of the teachers interviewed said that the size of the
school district also worked against the integration process (Zuniga, 2010). Zuniga (2010) found
that teachers in smaller school districts had better chances of integration than those that were in
19
much larger school districts because they could get faster help and more attention from
technology staff.
Link of theory and practice. Zuniga did not address, however, the link between theory
and practice as a barrier to integration. Another more recent research study conducted by Hur,
Cullen, and Brush (2010) investigated the link between theory and practice as a barrier to
integration and found that the lack of utilization of technology in the classroom by new teachers
may be linked to the inability for new teachers to have adequate time to construct their own
understanding. Techehaimanot, Mentzer, and Hickman (2011) reported similar results in a small
qualitative study of eight faculty members finding that the inability to integrate could be related
to the lack of authentic learning experiences in pre-service training activities.
Fear of technological equipment. While many teachers have welcomed the use of
technology within their curriculum, many others still remain resistant and have even called the
use of technology as threatening and disruptive to their teaching (Wehrli, 2010). Wehrli (2010)
stated that there is a broad continuum of attitudes towards the use of technology in the classroom
ranging from absolute fear to complete embracement.
Personal barriers to integration gained attention. The identification of personal
barriers to the integration of technology gained the attention of some researchers in 2011. Altun
and Kalayci (2011) found that another barrier to the integration of technology was the non-
identification of similar goals and objectives. Teachers may talk about their personal objectives
of technology, but unless a common organizational culture was developed and shared,
integration was not likely to be seen in their curriculum and/or lesson plans (Altun & Kalayci,
2011). The researchers concluded that a technology plan with clearly defined goals and
20
objectives was an important component of any successful technology integration. This plan must
be shared with all teachers and endorsed by school administrators to be effective.
Technology integration may also be difficult due to common barriers that all teachers
encounter such as problems with the right equipment, scheduling difficulties (e.g., computer
labs), and software availability (Hsu, 2011; Wright & Wilson, 2011). Due to such obstacles,
teachers may begin to believe that technology integration is not worth the effort and fail to see
the potential of it within their curriculum. Wright and Wilson (2011) studied ten teachers’
perceptions of technology integration in the classrooms and concluded that five of the teachers
who were at advanced stages of integration, had continued their professional development,
engaged their students using technology, and received support from the school community.
Their study recommended that to overcome common barriers, emphasis must be placed
on preparing teachers to think creatively particularly when they are faced with limited resources
and lack of professional development (Wright & Wilson, 2011). Also, teachers need to accept
that technology integration is rather complex and not a simple task (Koehler & Mishra, 2011).
That is, teachers have to be better prepared and trained in order to successfully integrate
technology into their curriculum.
More than 3,000 teachers enrolled in pre-service training volunteered to participate in an
exploration of the integration of information and communication technologies at six different
Turkish education facilities. Akbulut, Odabasi, and Kuzu (2011) concluded that the majority of
pre-service training programs did not facilitate the effective integration and use of technology for
instructional purposes sufficiently. The study also found for the first time, differences by gender
in that men had much more positive experiences with technology integration than women. It was
proposed that the negative perception faced by many of the participants was due to the
21
unsuccessful integration of technology and that the outlook of these participants may be
improved through a reward mechanism that focused on quality instruction (Akbulut et al., 2011).
According to a study by Moore-Hayes (2011), technology integration may be one of the
greatest challenges to teachers in the 21st century. For in-service teachers, the most critical
barrier to successful technology integration is most often a personal barrier according to Moore-
Hayes (2011). Despite all of the hardware and software that may be now available to teachers,
many teachers are still hesitant to integrate technology into their curriculum. One of the most
important barriers to that integration is not having positive self-efficacy (Moore-Hayes, 2011).
The study found that the self-confidence that may be established in teacher preparation programs
does not automatically translate to similar levels of self-efficacy once teachers begin their career
in schools (Moore-Hayes, 2011). Moore-Hayes (2011) found that “novice teachers may begin
their careers with a host of developmental and contextual issues that create potential barriers and
may affect whether they (continue) to use technology in their curriculum and with their students”
(p. 6).
Teacher beliefs were most critical barrier. An interesting study conducted by Ertmer,
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, and Sendurur (2012) found that the most significant
barrier to the successful integration of technology was teacher beliefs. Teachers were more able
to enact technology integration practices that closely aligned with their beliefs. That is, if they
believed that technology provided more opportunities for student choices, they were more likely
to try and use technology within their curriculum. These findings were supported most recently
by a study which found that there was a meaningful relationship between pre-service training and
modeling within teacher education programs and the use of technology in the classroom setting
(Koch, Heo, & Kush, 2012).
22
Reasons for this acceptance and willingness to integrate technology may be explained by
the lowering teacher student ratios being seen in many schools. Additionally, teachers are
becoming more aware and have a better understanding of the new 21st century demands and the
use of technology in teaching (Ertmer, et al., 2012). Another possible reason for the positive
attitude towards integration is that standards have been developed and promulgated by many
federal and state agencies as well as by professional groups such as ISTE®.
Prestridge (2012) found that teachers face two barriers in the integration of technology
within their curriculum. First order barriers such as difficulties in gaining access to technological
equipment, lack of professional development, or scarce digital curriculum resources are
continually diminishing for teachers. These barriers are also intrinsic to the teacher and may be
outside of the teachers’ availability or control. Second order barriers, such as teacher beliefs and
attitudes, are much more difficult to identify and can affect teaching behavior in the classroom
(Bandura, 1986; Clark & Peterson, 1986).
Prestridge (2012) concluded that teachers would be in better position to engage in the
integration of technology if they possessed more beliefs that the use of integration is a
worthwhile endeavor. Teachers, who acknowledge the role of technology, view it is a
constructivist tool and the value and relevancy of the technology to society lies in a future
orientation towards authentic problem-based approaches to teaching and learning in the schools
(Prestridge, 2012). King (2012) agreed that teachers must first realize the value of the technology
in order to see if the tool matches their own philosophy. According to King (2012), the tool is
perceived as secondary product to real teaching.
Recent research has indicated that effective utilization of technology depends largely on
the attitudes of teachers who ultimately decide how and when technology is used in the
23
classroom (Hismanoglu, 2012). Bullock (2004) reminds us, however, that teacher attitudes were
a critical barrier in the amalgamation of technology into teaching as far back as the early 2000s.
Teachers can become effective agents for integrating technology only when they have a positive
attitude, according to Hismanoglu (2012). If teachers feel comfortable with the technology, they
will attempt to learn the required skills for employing technology tasks in the classroom setting.
Otherwise, a lack of technology knowledge and skills may give rise to anxiety and lack of
confidence and act as a major barrier to the successful integration of technology (Hismanoglu,
2012).
Models of Adoption
Over the years, a number of studies have been conducted to determine the extent of
technological integration into the classroom. Coming from these studies and research are a
variety of models that attempt to explain how new technology is integrated. They also serve the
role of providing a framework within which teachers can develop goals for integrating
technology into their curriculum.
Moersch’s model. One of the earliest models of computer integration
was developed by Moersch in 1994. This model was designed to measure the
interactive use of computers in the classroom by teachers (Learning Quest,
Incorporated, 2005). It also examined ways to integrate technology into
social studies, science, mathematics, and language arts curriculums. It has
eight levels which range from non-use (lack of use) to refinement (used in
the process) and summarized in Table 1.
24
According to Moersch (1998), as teachers progress from one level to the next
level, a series of changes occurs in the teachers’ curriculum and that their teaching becomes
more student-centered and less teacher-centered (Moersch, 1998). The challenge is not to
use technology merely as an isolated task, but to integrate it into the
curriculum as a part of problem solving approaches with students in the
various curriculums (Moersch, 1995).
Table 1
Levels of Technology Implementation Model
______________________________________________________________________________
Number–Level Description______________________________________________________________________________
0–Non-Use A perceived lack of access to toolsNo interest in use
1–Awareness Used for curriculum type task management
Little relevance to curriculum applications
2–Exploration Technology-based tools supplement the existing instructional program
Computer is used as an extension to activitiesTechnology may be used however, merely for the sake of technology
3–Infusion Technology-based tools, including databases, spreadsheet and graphing packages, multimedia and desktop publishing applications, and Internet use complement selected instructional events
4–Integration Technology-based tools are integrated in an authentic manner that provides rich context for students’ understanding of the pertinent concepts, themes, and processes
25
Technology is seen as a tool to identify and solve authentic problems to a theme, concept or instructional objective
5–Expansion Technology access is extended beyond the classroomTeachers actively elicit technology applications from businesses, governmental agencies, research organizations, and universities
6–Refinement Technology is perceived as a process, product, and/or tool for students to develop and refine solutions related to an identified problemTechnology is viewed as a seamless medium in the curriculumStudents have ready access to array of technology hardware and software tools and applicationsTeachers use technology as one tool in their instructional delivery
Apple classroom of tomorrow model. This model consists of five stages as shown in
Table 2. This model focused on how access to computer technology in the classroom influences
the type of instructional delivery used by the teachers within their curriculum (Dwyer, Ringstaff,
& Sandholtz, 1990).
At the entry level, teachers are just learning to operate the equipment and use it in basic
applications. At this stage, teachers may be using technology merely for technology’s sake.
Technology applications in the pedagogy, as seen in Table 2, will be centered on basic lecture
and recitation activities. The model shows that Adoption, Adaption, and Appropriation stages
can be viewed as levels with a readiness to change (Dwyer, et al., 1990).
Focus in the higher levels of integration, as in the Moersch model, will be more on
student-centered problem solving, such as project-based and simulation activities, and less on
26
teacher-centered administrative applications. The final stage–Invention–suggests that teachers
have integrated technology thoroughly into their curriculum in a constructivist-oriented type of
teaching. The researchers’ model also concurred with research studies presented earlier that
showed the importance of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about the value of technology in
instruction and school. Dwyer, et al. (1990) found that teacher values and beliefs were an
important factor when looking at planning and implementing technology into the school
curriculum.
Table 2
Instructional Evolution Technology Model
______________________________________________________________________________
Stage Instructional Technology Pedagogy
______________________________________________________________________________
Adoption Text Lecture/RecitationHigh ComputerAccess
Adaptation Text Lecture/RecitationHigh Computer Play and ExperimentAccess
Appropriation Text IndividualizedHigh Computer CooperativeAccess Project Based
SimulationDistance MultimodalSelf-Paced
Invention Immediate InteractComputer Access DoProcess Create
27
Rogers’s model. Developed in 1962, Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovation Model attempted
to explain how, why, and the rate at which innovations take place in a particular culture (Rogers,
1962). Rogers proposed that an innovation spreads through a culture based on the eagerness of
the initial adopter and that four main elements influence a new idea such as technology:
innovation, communication, time, and social (Rogers, 1995). Table 3 shows the five categories
into which adopters of an innovation may fall. According to Rogers, innovations are any objects,
ideas, or practices that individuals perceive as being new (Rogers, 1995).
Table 3
Diffusion of Innovation Model
______________________________________________________________________________
Category Characteristics______________________________________________________________________________
Innovators Venturesome, educated, multiple information sourcesPerson has a greater propensity to take risks
Early Adopters Social leaders, popular, educated.
Early Majority Deliberate, many informal social contacts
Late Majority Skeptical, traditional, lower socioeconomic status
Laggards Neighbors and friends are main information sources, fear of debt
Researchers Johnson, Lennon, Jasper, Damhorst, and Lakner (2003) applied a portion of
Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovation Model to construct a model for studying small community
consumers’ perceptions of the use of technology in Internet shopping and the use of the Internet
28
to make purchases. As compared to small community consumers who did not purchase using the
Internet, those who did purchase rated Internet shopping as being relatively advantageous; more
compatible with their values, beliefs, needs, and past experiences; more observable; and less
complex – all characteristics that Rogers (1995) hypothesized accelerate adoption of an
innovation such as technology (Johnson, et al., 2003). In addition, the more consumers used the
Internet, the more likely they were to have purchased via the Internet which also supports the
Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovation Model (Johnson, et al., 2003).
Concerns-based adoption model. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model was originally
based on research that showed a person, when experiencing change of any kind, moves through
seven different levels of concern (National Academy of Sciences, 2005; Sweeny, 2003). At first,
a person may not be concerned with the change, but as more and more information is received,
the person begins to question its use as shown in level 2. At the final stages, the person expresses
concern and wants to know more about the change and how it can be used in an actual
application.
Table 4
Concerns-Based Adoption Model
______________________________________________________________________________
Level Concern______________________________________________________________________________
Level 0: Awareness Expression of Concern: I am not concerned about it
Level 1: Informational Expression of Concern: I would like to know more about it
Level 2: Personal Expression of Concern: How will using it affect me
29
Level 3: Management Expression of Concern: I seem to be spending all my time getting materials ready
Level 4: Consequence Expression of Concern: How can I use it and refine it to have more impact
Level 5: Collaboration Expression of Concern: How can I relate what I am doing to what others are doing
Level 6: Refocusing Expression of Concern: I have some ideas about somethingthat would work even better
Table 5 presents the same information using the Concerns-Based Adoption Model when
teachers apply the integration of technology within their curriculum. When a new technology is
introduced, most teachers have no idea as to how it can be used, and may even question its value
(Hall & Hord, 2006). As more and more information is received and the new technology is
applied, teachers begin to work on using the technology to maximize the effects with their
students. At its final stage, teachers may begin to even re-evaluate the quality of use of
information technology and seek major modifications of, or alternatives to, present innovation to
achieve increased impact.
Table 5
Concerns-Based Adoption Technology Model
______________________________________________________________________________
Level Behavior______________________________________________________________________________
Level 0: Non-use I have little or no knowledge of information technology in education, no involvement with it, and I am doing nothing toward becoming involved
Level 1: Orientation I am seeking or acquiring information about information technology in education
30
Level 2: Preparation I am preparing for the first use of information technology in education
Level 3: Mechanical Use I focus most effort on the short-term, day-to-day use of information technology with little time for reflectionMy effort is primarily directed toward mastering tasks required to use the information technology
Level 4A: Routine I feel comfortable using information technology in educationHowever, I am putting forth little effort and thought to improve information technology in education or its consequences
Level 4B: Refinement I vary the use of information technology in education toincrease the expected benefits within the classroomI am working on using information technology to maximize the effects with my students
Level 5: Integration I am combining my own efforts with related activities of other teachers and colleagues to achieve impact in the classroom
Level 6: Renewal I reevaluate the quality of use of information technology in education, seek major modifications of, or alternatives to, and present innovation to achieve increased impact I examine new developments in the field, and explore new goals for myself and my school district
Russell’s model. Russell’s Learning to Use Technology Model consisted of
six stages in which learners move or pass through as they evolve in their use of technology
(Toledo, 2005). Russell sought to understand the trauma that a learner may experience when
using new technology.
Russell (1996) tested the theory, as shown in Table 6, in a study that identified and
described the six stages learners go through as the technology goes from being alien and
intrusive to becoming useful and invisible. When new technology learners apply the knowledge
of the six stages, Russell (1996) found that the learners appreciated knowing that their inability
to utilize new technology was not unique or inadequate. Even more importantly to the study of
31
technology integration, was the finding that teachers who have knowledge of the six stages can
identify critical times when they need to provide more intensive support as well as times when
less support can be provided. This knowledge is considered to be critical in the integration of
technology into the curriculum.
Table 6
Learning to Use Technology Model
______________________________________________________________________________
Stage Integration______________________________________________________________________________
Stage 1 Awareness
Stage 2 Learning the Process
Stage 3 Understanding and application of the process
Stage 4 Familiarity and confidence
Stage 5 Adoption to other contexts
Stage 6 Creative application to new context
O’Bannon and Vannatta’s model. This model, Project Pre-Service Infusion of
Computer Technology Model, was developed using the ten essential conditions identified by the
ISTE® in an effort to foster learning environments that utilize highly integrated computer
technology in the curriculum (O’Bannon & Vannatta, 2001). The model is explained and
summarized in Table 7.
Vannatta, using the model’s framework, presented his first findings from a research study
at the Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International
Conference in Chesapeake, Virginia in 2006. Vannatta (2006) stated that most novice teachers
32
struggle to fully understand the magnitude of the developing and implementing an effective
lesson plan using technology. In an attempt to fulfill standards and facilitate effective use,
teachers and teacher educators have often singularly focused their efforts on acquiring the
technology skills only for themselves and for their students (Vannatta, 2006). According to
Vannatta (2006), these skills are only one component of becoming an effective technology user
and actually integrating technology into their curriculum. This model was developed to foster
change in both university classes and K-12 field sites that are training grounds for pre-service
teachers so that they can develop lesson plans for the classroom that infuse technology and link
theory and practice more closely together.
Table 7
Project Pre-Service Infusion of Computer Technology Model
______________________________________________________________________________
Essential Conditions Implemented in Project______________________________________________________________________________
Shared Vision There is proactive leadership and administrative support from the entire system Provided activities that facilitated a dynamic and constructivist vision of technology infusion where an assortment of technologies and applications were used to enhance the creation of products, facilitateproblem solving, and assist exploration
33
Access Educators have access to currenttechnologies and softwareProvided participants with laptop, modemand network cards, and softwaretelecommunication networks
Skilled Educators Educators are skilled inthe use of technology for learningBegan building a foundation of skillededucators in the K–6 classroom anduniversity classroom
Professional Development Educators haveconsistent access to professionaldevelopment in support of technology usein teaching and learningImplemented a training model thatcreated shared vision, providedopportunities for team collaboration,provided one-on-one mentoring,provided focused training sessions onapplications and infusion methods, andclearly communicated expectations
Technical Assistance Educators havetechnical assistance for maintainingand using technologyConducted tech support nightsProvided access to tech-savvy graduateassistants
Content Standards and Curriculum Educators are both knowledgeable in theircurrent subject matter and current in thecontent standards and teachingmethodologies in their disciplineProvided training on how technology canfacilitate content standardsReviewed technology and contentstandardsProvided numerous examples oftechnology-enhanced lesson plans in variouscontent areas (Web site)
34
Student-Centered Teaching Provided training on ways technology can move away from teacher-centered applications and encompass student-centered approaches to learningFacilitate active, cooperative, andproject-based learningProvided example lessons and products thatdemonstrated student-centered approaches
Assessment The effectiveness of technology for learning is continuously assessedProvided training on performance-basedassessmentRequired participants to develop anappropriate assessment component forlessonsFacilitated the development of innovativeassessment practices in teacher education
Community Support The community and school partners provide expertise, support, and resourcesPartnered with area schoolsDisseminated news releases and conductedtechnical eventsReceived financial support from theuniversity
Support Policies and Incentives School and university policies, financing, andreward structures are in place tosupport technology in learningProvided financial and equipmentincentives to participantsEncouraged departments to recognizetechnology-related activities intenure/promotion/merit processes
Toledo’s model. Toledo’s Five Stage Model of Computer Technology Integration into
Teacher Education Curriculum attempted to show the stages that schools, colleges, and
departments of education go through in the use of higher levels of computer technology use and
integration in teacher preparation programs (Toledo, 2005). This model employed Rogers’s
Diffusion of Innovation Model, as a basis for its theoretical framework.
35
The model, shown in Table 8, consists of five stages that share characteristics of the
teacher preparation programs. In the last stage, technology appears seamless to the students as
teachers have embedded technology into their lesson plans. Students are also enthusiastic at this
last stage of integration.
Pressures to integrate technology into the curriculum are increasing the need to develop
teacher education programs which ensure that the teachers being training are capable of
integrating computer technology into the K-12 curriculum. The Five-Stage Model for Computer
Technology Integration into Teacher Education Curriculum provides a template for teacher
education programs seeking to meet that goal (Toledo, 2005).
Table 8
Five Stage Model for Computer Technology Integration into Teacher Education Curriculum
______________________________________________________________________________
Stage Characteristics, Tasks, Actions______________________________________________________________________________
Pre-Integration Lack of university leadershipFew faculty using computer technology
Stand-alone classes offered to meet credentialingrequirementsLack of infrastructure to provide funding, support, andresources
Transition Change in support of leadership at the university, school,and/or departmental levelsIncreased interest and vision for the use and integration ofcomputer technology filters down to the teacher educator
Requirements of technology standards produces shiftDevelopment Schools, colleges, and departments of education begin to
complete tasks that enable them to infuse computertechnology throughout the curriculumAcquisition of technical resources such as computers for
36
faculty, computer lab sharing of education technologyfaculty and specialistsPlanning and implementation of new faculty developmentprograms
Expansion Further movement in the department toward providing theneeded education, technology hardware, software andsystematic training for facultySuccess in computer technology integrationStrengthening of the relationships between the support personnel and the facultyCreation of an environment in which faculty areencouraged to risk trying new technologies andmethodologies
System-Wide Integration Evidence of the integration of standards as provided by the ISTE® is present and utilizedComputer technology is being embedded into each of the teacher education coursesA systematic approach to faculty development through supportive relationship-based mentoring comes to fruition in this final stageBoth faculty and students are enthusiastic for integration and seek out other technology tools
Florida technology integration matrix. One of the latest models to illustrate how
technology is integrated into the classroom is a model developed by the Department of Education
at the University of South Florida in 2006. The Florida Technology Integration Matrix (TIM)
incorporates five interdependent characteristics of meaningful learning environments: active,
constructive, goal directed (i.e., reflective), authentic, and collaborative (Jonassen, Howland,
Moore, & Marra, 2003).
The TIM associates five levels of technology integration (i.e., entry, adoption, adaptation,
infusion, and transformation) with each of the five characteristics of meaningful learning
environments. The levels of technology integration are based on theory developed in Rogers’s
Diffusion of Innovation Model (i.e., innovators, early adopters, early majority, later majority,
37
and laggards) in 1962. The five interdependent characteristics of meaningful learning
environments are those developed by Jonassen, et al. (2003): active, constructive, goal directed
(i.e., reflective), authentic, and collaborative. Together, the five levels of technology integration
and the five characteristics of meaningful learning environments create a matrix of 25 cells as
illustrated in Table 9.
The TIM assumes that basic technology skills and integration of technology into the
curriculum go hand-in-hand to form teacher technology literacy (University of South Florida,
2011). The TIM is designed to assist schools and districts in evaluating the level of technology
integration into classrooms and to provide teachers with models to show how technology can be
integrated into their curriculum in meaningful ways. It is the Department’s intent that the TIM be
used in comprehensive technology planning (University of South Florida, 2011).
Table 9
Florida Technology Integration Matrix (TIM)
______________________________________________________________________________
Levels of Integration
Entry Adoption Adaption Infusion Transformation______________________________________________________________________________
Active Information Conventional Exploration Self-directed Extensive Usereceived use and choice and unconventional
38
Collaborative Individual Conventional Student Choice Outside resourcesuse exploration use
Constructive Information Guided Independent Choice and Extensivediscussed and building and choice building and unconventional
Authentic Use Guided use Independent Choices Innovative inunrelated meaningful connections complete local or global
Goal Directed Directions Conventional Purposeful Flexible Extensivegiven and procedural and choice innovation and evaluation
Summary
This literature review affirms the importance of the problem of the integration of
technology within the teachers’ curriculum. Billions of dollars have been spent towards making
technology equipment available to teachers and students at the high school level. The adoption of
a national education policy–“Public Law 107-110. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001”–puts
focus on proven instruction and methods, including technological tools in the schools.
Federal standards have been adopted for education which includes technology use and
integration within the curriculum in the classroom. Many states have concurred with the
importance of this problem by identifying and adopting standards and guidelines for teachers to
utilize in instructing students. In some states, a technology course is even required for
graduation. International as well as professional organizations also exist to increase and promote
the use of technology as a tool within the teachers’ curriculum.
The need to integrate technology within the teacher’s curriculum is grounded in the
theory of social constructivism. This theory was proposed by Vygotsky in 1978 and explains
why social interaction plays such a major role in the development of cognition (Vygotsky, 1978).
It suggests that people construct their own knowledge of the outside world through experiences
39
and then create reflections of those experiences in order to learn (Micheletto, 2011). In other
words, learning is a social process in which the individual must participate (Vygotsky, 1978).
A summary of the literature from 1990 through 2012 revealed that the integration of
technology has not been successfully integrated into the school curriculum. Factors that act as
barriers to the integration of technology have been identified by various research studies (notably
by Zuniga in 2010). These barriers include the non-availability of equipment, lack of pre-service
training, authentic learning experiences, and fear of technological equipment. Teacher attitudes
and beliefs have been identified as one of the primary barriers to the integration of technology in
recent years and should receive further attention in future research studies.
Finally, a review of the major models of technology integration was presented. These
models attempt to provide a framework for evaluating and measuring the integration of
technology. While they may differ in their actual description of integration, they all attempt to
set a clear vision as to how teachers can effectively use technology. They also provide a
framework with which teachers can set goals for the integration of technology into their
curriculum.
Research Questions
Central Question. What are the experiences of the selected teachers in Miami Dade
County Public high schools in the integration of technology within their curriculum?
Sub questions will then be developed to refine the central question.
Sub questions. They include:
40
What are the common barriers experienced by the selected teachers in Miami Dade
County Public high schools that inhibit the integration of technology within their curriculum?
What are the programs/activities/actions experienced by the selected teachers in Miami
Dade County Public high schools that hinder and/or help in the integration of technology within
their curriculum?
Chapter 3: Methodology
Aim of the Study
The aim of this study is to explore the views of high school teachers in Miami Dade
County Public Schools on the current state of integration of technology within their curriculum.
An examination of the barriers that were identified in the literature research that have inhibited
41
the integration will add to the understanding and knowledge of the current status of technology
within the high school curriculum.
The research design is described in this chapter. In addition, a discussion of the site,
potential participants, and sampling procedures are included. Data collection tools and analysis
along with ethical considerations, trustworthiness, research bias, and limitations are also
addressed in this chapter.
Design
Method. The methodology planned for this study is qualitative. Strauss and Corbin
(1990) claim that qualitative research studies not only provide new perspectives on things about
which much may be already known, but that they can enhance in-depth information on a
phenomenon that may be difficult to convey quantitatively. Creswell adds that the intent of
qualitative research design is not to generalize to a population like a quantitative study does, but
to develop an in-depth exploration of a central phenomenon (Creswell, 2012).
Approach. A phenomenological approach will be utilized to gain a greater understanding
of the technology process. This type of approach attempts to describe for several individuals
their shared lived experiences of a concept or phenomenon (Creswell, 2007). The “basic purpose
of a phenomenological study is to reduce individual experiences of a phenomenon to a
description of a universal essence” (van Manen, 1990, p. 177).
A series of in-depth interviews with selected high school teachers will be utilized for the
purpose of describing their perspectives on the integration of technology within their curriculum.
Moustakas (1994) explains that this description consists of what they experienced and how they
experienced the phenomenon.
42
Steps. Creswell (2007, pp. 60-62) outlines the major steps that will be taken by this
researcher in conducting this qualitative phenomenological study:
1. The researcher determines if the problem is best suited examined by using a
phenomenological approach.
2. A phenomenon of interest is identified.
3. The researcher recognizes the broad philosophical assumption of the phenomenology.
4. Data are collected from individuals who have experience the phenomenon.
5. The participants are asked broad, general questions. Other open ended questions may be
also be used as a guide.
6. Data analysis occurs and statements, quotes, etc. are developed into themes. Next the
researcher developed clusters of meaning from these significant themes.
7. These significant statement and themes are used to write a description of what the
participants experienced.
8. Finally, the researcher prepares a composite description that present the essence of the
phenomenon, called the essential, in variant structure (or essence).
Participants
District. A large school district in Florida will be selected for the study. The district is
the largest school district in Florida with an enrollment of 345,000 students and 40,000
employees in April, 2012 (Miami Dade County Public School, 2012a). According to the
Department of Education (2008) who publishes a list of the largest school districts in the United
States based on enrollment, this district is the fourth largest in the United States.
The district is also the second largest minority-majority public school system in the
country (Miami Dade County Public Schools, 2012a). As of 2011, 65% of these students were
43
of Hispanics origin (of any race), 25% Black, and 9% Non-Hispanic White, 2% Asian and
multiracial making one of the most diverse school districts in the nation (Miami Dade County
Public Schools, 2012a).
The district covers a total of 415 institutions including 196 elementary schools, 56 middle
schools, and 37 high schools (Miami Dade County Public Schools, 2012b). Other facilities
include special K-8 centers, charter schools, vocational schools, magnet schools, alternative
schools, and special education centers.
High Schools. Three selected schools which represent the different sized schools in
Miami Dade County Public Schools will be drawn from 37 high schools in the system . They
will be defined as School S for small size student enrollment, School M for medium size student
enrollment, and School L for large size student enrollment in place of using the actual name of
each school. School S will represent the school with enrollment of 999 students or less. School
M will represent a school with enrollment between 1,000 – 2,499 students and School L is a
school with more than 2,500 students enrolled. Enrollment will be verified by the numbers of
students that are officially registered with the school after the first two weeks of the fall semester
2012-2013.
Teachers. Fifteen participants (five from each school) will be purposefully sampled from
a teacher roster within selected schools. They will be referred to as Teacher A to Teacher O (15
teachers) to protect their confidentiality and promote their openness in sharing information as to
the status of technology integration within their curriculum. The sampling of teachers used for
this study is not a probability sample that will enable the researcher to determine statistical
references to a population, rather; Creswell, (2007) states that this will be a homogeneous
44
purposeful sample that will intentionally sample a group of people that can best inform the
researcher about the research problem under consideration.
Data Collection Tools
Instrument. The instrument to be used in this study was developed by Ramiro Zuniga in
2010 from the University of Texas-Pan American. Permission has been granted by Zuniga to
utilize these open-ended questions in this proposed study. A copy of the questions developed by
Zuniga and approved for use in the study is shown in Appendix A. A pilot study was conducted
by Zuniga in 2009 prior to execution with teachers who were not selected in his study (Zuniga,
2010).
Interview. Through a series of in-depth open-ended questions with high school teachers,
this researcher will explore the barriers that have inhibited the integration of technology within
their curriculum. The questions will have no specific answer in mind so as to allow this
researcher to fully explore the depth of their knowledge of the integration of technology and their
views towards its utilization within their curriculum (Creswell, 2012).
Format. Each interview will be carried out in a semi-structured format. This format will
include general questions that will guide the interview as well as open-ended questions intended
to elicit a rich detailed account of each participant’s perspective on the integration of computer
technology into the public school classroom. Although it is prepared to insure that basically the
same information is obtained from each question, there are not pre-determined responses and the
interviewer is free to probe and explore with these pre-determined areas. (Lofland &Lofland,
1984). Careful attention will be given to each response for the purpose of analysis. Follow-up
questions will be phrased, utilizing the participant’s own words to probe deeper into the each
45
individual participant’s perspective and to develop a more complete understanding of their
experience.
Interview Protocol. Creswell recommends that an interview protocol, a form of four or
five pages in length, be developed with the initial open ended questions and space provided to
write respondent’s comments (Creswell, 2007). This enables the interviewer to take notes during
the interview and helps organize thoughts on items such as headings, information, central ideas,
ending the interview, and thanking the respondent (Creswell, 2007).
Procedures
NOVA Southeastern University Policies. The propose study will follow all procedures
and polices established by NOVA Southeastern University’s Fischler School of Education and
Human Resources. Certification with the CITI (Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative)
was received by the researcher on February 2, 2012. The researcher will seek approval by the
University Institutional Review Board before beginning any research activities of this study.
Miami Dade County Public High School District Approval. Following approval by
the IBR at NOVA Southeastern University, contact will be made with the Miami Dade County
Public Schools regarding exact procedures for district level consent. Formal approval will be
sought via a first class letter to the Superintendent of Schools Mr. Alberto Carvalho. This letter
will contain a brief summary of the purpose of the proposed study as well as the researcher’s
intent to request participation from 15 teachers within three of the 37 high schools within the
system. The approval from the IRB will be provided to Mr. Carvalho also. An email and or
phone call directly to Mr. Carvalho will occur as necessary to finalize approval. The researcher
will request a letter of approval be sent to the three schools selected for the project asking for
46
their participation. Alternate schools will be requested from Mr. Carvalho from the different
size-schools as a back-up in case an individual principal does not want to participate.
Gatekeeepers. Following Mr. Carvalho's approval of the District's participation, an email
will be sent to the three gatekeepers (principals) of the three selected schools from the list of 37
high schools. Similar information sent previously to the Superintendent will be provided to each
principal requesting the participation of five teachers from each of the schools. Information will
be added to this email that the participation of teachers is voluntarily and will occur outside of
their teaching hours of each teacher. Emails and/or phone calls will follow as necessary to
finalize participation.
Teachers. Once approval has been given by the principals at the three participating
schools, each respective principal will be asked to provide a teacher roster of teachers actively
teaching during the 2012-2013 school year. In order to reduce potential bias, every third teacher
from an alphabetized list will be selected for participation in the study until a list of five teachers
is reached. Teachers will be sent email directly to their school email requesting their
participation in the study. A brief summary of the study and the requirements for their
participation will be provided.
Consent Form. Upon agreement to participate in the study, a copy of the
consent form will provided to each participant. In addition, each participant will be advised of
the process followed for conducting the interview. Each participant will also be notifed that they
may withdraw from the study at any time. Each participant will be advised that an audio
recording of the interview would be collected solely for transcription purposes.
Interviews. The interviews will be conducted in each respective teacher’s classroom in
an effort to allow each teacher the comfort and security of familiar surroundings (Fraenkel &
47
Wallen, 1996). In order to establish an environment of trust, each teacher will be reminded that
their participation is voluntary and may withdraw at any time during the study and that their
responses will be kept confidential and not identified by name (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
Audio Recording. Recording of the interviews will take place with a Dell® laptop
utilizing Audacity® software which will allow the compression of the interview to MP3 files for
secure storage later. An extended microphone will be utilized to capture the recording between
the interviewer and the teacher. Recorded interviews of the teachers will utilize the identification
system discussed earlier in the participants section. Recording the interviews have the advantage
of capturing data more fully that written notes and it also makes it easier for the interviewer to
focus on the interview (Hoepfl, 1997).
Notes. Notes will also be kept of each respondent’s interviews also. These notes may
include running descriptions of settings and activities or include drawings or maps that will add
to the transcripts later.
Transcription. Transcription of each interview from the digital recording will take place
as soon as possible from the actual interview to allow accurately capturing the discussion from
each respondent. The interview protocol used previously with each interview will be invaluable
during the transcription of each interview. Transcription will be placed in a word document
saved to the teacher’s confidential identification.
Storage and Security. Each interview conducted will have three sources. The audio will
be compressed to MP3 files and stored on a jump drive exclusively devoted for this study. The
transcribed interview will be placed in a Microsoft Word document and also be stored on the
jump drive. The jump drive will be password protected to secure confidentiality. The actual
interview protocol and field notes will be kept in a metal file cabinet at the home of the
48
researcher under lock and key. These interview materials will be kept for five years following
the completion of the study.
Data Analysis
Bogdan and Biklen (1992, p. 145) define qualitative data analysis as “working with data,
organizing it and breaking it down, analyzing it, searching for patterns, and discovering what it is
be learned that the researcher will share with others.” Qualitative analysis does require creativity
as the researcher is attempting to place raw data in to logical meaningful categories (Hoepfl,
1997).
The researcher begins the anlaysis phase by reading and rereading each of the transcripts.
Researchers must then develop a coding system which breaks down the data into meaningful
units of knowledge that match text segments and tentatively assigning names for those segments
(Creswell, 2007). The researcher acknowledges that coding is not just labeling segments of text
but linking those segments from data to idea (Saldana, 2009).For this study, coding will be done
on hard-copy printouts, not via a computer monitor. According to Saldana (2009), there is
something about manipulating qualitative data on paper and writing codes in pencil that give the
researcher more control over and ownership of the work.
The researcher will then try to group similar codes and look for repeating or redundant
codes. The objective at this stage of the data analysis is to reduce the list to a more manageable
number, such as 25 or 30 patterns (Creswell, 2012).
Next, themes are developed by combining the codes into broader categories. Creswell
(2012) suggests that the list of codes should be reduced to five to seven themes Themes (also
called categories) are similar codes aggregated together to form a major idea in the database
49
(Creswell, 2012). Emphasis will be placed on gleaning themes, patterns, and categories from the
participant’s interviews (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).
An interpretation of the data occurs now. Here is where the researcher will attempt to
make some sense of the data or lessons learned according to Lincoln and Guba (1985). In the
interpretive stage of data analysis, researchers step back and form large meanings of what is
going on in the situations (Creswell, 2007).
In the final phase of data analysis, researchers present the data visually by employing a
matrix of findings that augment the narrative. Creswell (2012) suggests that there many ways to
narrate the “essence” of the lived experience such as tables, tree diagrams, pictures, maps, and
demographic tables.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations will be kept at high sensitivity by the researcher during every stage
of the research process of the qualitative study. Lipson (1994) groups ethical issues into
informing participants of consent/purpose, deceptive practices, confidentiality with participants,
benefits to participants versus risk, and requests that go beyond social norms. In addition, this
researcher will insure that the proposed study will include ethical interview practices; sharing my
role as the researcher to all participants; being respectful of the research site; and giving back or
reciprocity to the volunteer participants. The researcher will share the results of my study with
all participants−teachers, principals and superintendent –upon completion of the research study.
Trustworthiness
To establish trustworthiness of a qualitative study, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggests
using naturalistic research terms such as credibility, authenticity, dependability and
50
confirmability. The researcher must establish and maintain trustworthiness with his participants
throughout the study.
This researcher will utilize methods of data collection that should help establish
trustworthiness. As discussed in the procedures section of this study, an interview protocol will
be kept during each interview which will help confirm the results of the study. Also, each
interview will have a digital recording of the interview process. In addition, notes will be taken
to help with accuracy of the data.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) also suggest that prolonged engagement in the field with the
participants is another way of building trustworthiness. Each of the interviews will conducted in
each respective teacher’s classroom during their conference period in an effort to allow each
teacher the comfort and security of familiar surroundings (Fraenkel & Wallen 1996).
In each case, the researcher will sit directly across from the teacher in close proximity. In
order to further establish an environment of trust, each teacher will be reminded that their
participation was voluntary and their responses were going to be kept confidential (Gall, Gall, &
Borg, 2003). Using the suggested process of member checking, each participant will be provided
with a transcript of their respective interview and asked to review and provide corrections, if
needed, in order to ensure accuracy of recorded responses (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
Research Bias
Interpreting the descriptions of individuals’ experiences is critical to understanding the
phenomenon in qualitative study (Ottenbreit-Leftwish, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010). The
phenomenon logical approach positions that the researcher is not completely able to completely
isolate his or her own presuppositions and assumptions about the research and should not try too
51
(Hammerlsey & Atkinson, 1983). This researcher must acknowledge that they may be
misconceptions or bias during the study.
The extensive literature research reports that the integration of technology in the high
school is not of full integration. Also, many barriers to the integration have been identified in the
research studies and may have given the process a negative view. This view must be
acknowledged by this researcher as potential bias.
Finally, my current resume indicates some potential bias as I am a teacher in the field
experiencing technology integration first hand. I teach in three magnet schools, all of which
provide each of the students with the latest technology by providing personal laptops for
classroom and home use. Also, activities within my lesson plans are all technology driven.
Limitations
All research studies carry some limitations due to the nature of research studies. First,
this proposed study is limited to 15 teachers in three schools in Miami Dade County Public
Schools. The results of this study cannot be generalized to other populations of teachers in
different school districts.
Secondly, all of the interviews will be personally conducted by this researcher. While
this interviewer is not a trained qualitative researcher, he does have multiple degrees with course
work and experience in research designs and interviewing. Also, as a practicing marketer, this
researcher gained experience in interviewing and survey design for more than a decade with
various Fortune 500 companies.
52
Chapter 4: Findings
Findings are discussed according to the approach and design.
Examples of Approaches:
Grounded Theory
Ethnographic
Narrative
Phenomenology
Examples of Designs:
Systematic
Emerging
Constructivist
Realist
Critical
Case Study
Descriptive
Explanatory
Existential
Transcendental
Hermeneutic
For instance, in grounded theory, the aim is generation of theoretical constructs. In this
section, then, you would have findings from the process of memo writing, theoretical sampling,
sorting, saturation, the review of literature, and developing the theory.
53
With an ethnographic approach, the findings may be reported in a smooth, flowing
description narrative. The aim of the narrative is to portray the full context, to the extent
possible, which was discovered by exploring pieces of reality or experience. Review of other
sources, such as literature and films, is a plus.
With phenomenology, the findings will be reported differently. Examples might include
(a) a description of experiential themes, (b) a description of the essences of experience, (c) a
description of relationships among essences, and (d) a review of other sources (e.g., literature,
films).
54
Chapter 5: Discussion
While you write this section incorporate the following: (a) preconceptions and ideas as
discussed in your introduction, (b) existing literature and practice in the area of study, and (c) the
utilization of the method.
Discuss:
Meanings and understandings
Implication of the study
Relevance of the study
Integrate the following:
Significance and substance
Importance to discipline
Critique of findings with suggestions for change and future inquiry
Conclusions and Recommendations
55
References
Akbulut, Y., Odabasi, H., & Kuzu, A. (2011). Perceptions of preservice teachers regarding theintegration of information and communication technologies in Turkish education facilities. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 175-184.
Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies:The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers and Education, 47(4), 373-398.
Altun, S., & Kalayci, E. (2011). Integrating ICT at the faculty level: A case study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 230-240.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood, Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Becker, H. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is
Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51).
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bullock, S. (2004). Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the factors that
preservice teachers encounter as they attempt to gain experience teaching with technology during field placement experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12, 211-237.
Casey, H., & Rakes, G. (2002). An analysis of the influence of technology training
on teacher stages of concern regarding the use of instructional technology in schools.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(4), 124-132.Cavas, B. (2005). Designing Learning Environmental Integrated with Technology.
(Doctoral Thesis. Institute of Educational Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir, Turkey).
Cavas, B., Cavas, P., Karaoglan, B., & Kisla, T. (2009). A study on science teachers’ attitudes
towards information and communication technologies in education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 1-14.
CDW. (2004). National teacher survey. Retrieved from http://webobjects.cdw.com/webobjects/docs/PDFs/CDWG/
NationalTeacherSurvey.PDF.
56
CDW. (2005) Teachers talk tech 2005: Tools for teachers vs. tools for teaching.
Retrieved fromhttp://newsroom.cdwg.com/features/TTTCompleteResults.pdf.
Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986) Teacher’s thought processes. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.).Handbook of research and teaching (3rd ed.). pp. 255-296. New York, NY:
Maxmillan.
Cox, M., Preston, C., & Cox, K. (1999, September). What motivates teachers to use ICT?Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference. Brighton, England.
Cuban, L. (1994). Computer meets classroom: Who wins? Education Digest. 59 (7) 50-53.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies
in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational
Research Journal 38(4), 813-834.
Dawson, C., & Rakes, G. (2003). The influence of principals’ technology training on
the integration of technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 36(1), 29-49.
Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2010). A framework for teacher’s integration of ICTinto their classroom practice. Computers and Education, 57, 1469-1483.
Dror, I. (2008). Technology enhanced learning: The good, bad, and the ugly. Pragmatics &Cognition, 16(2), 215-223.
Dunn, K., & Rakes, G. (2010). Learner-centeredness and teacher efficacy: Predicting teachers’consequence concerns regarding the use of technology in the classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 57-81.
Dupagne, M., & Krendel, K. (1992). Teachers’ attitudes towards computers: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education (24)3, 420-429.
Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs and practices part I: Patterns
57
of change: Apple classroom of tomorrow research report 8. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/euro/pdfs/acotlibrary/rpt8.pdf#search='The%20Evolution%20of%20Teachers%E2%80%99%20Instructional%20Beliefs %20and%20Practices%20in%20HighAccesstoTechnology%20Classrooms’.
Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwish, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education, 59 (2), 423-435.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research ineducation (3rd ed.). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Gabriel, T., & Richtel, M. (2011, October 8). Inflating the Software Report Card. New YorkTimes. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/technology/a-classroom-software-boom-but-mixed-results-despite-the-hype.html?pagewanted=all.
Golding, C. (2011). The many faces of constructivist discussion. Educational Philosophy andTheory, 43(5), 467-483.
Hall, G., & Horde, S. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York, NY:Tavistock.
Herrell, A., & Jordan, M. (2007). 35 classroom management strategies: Promoting learning andbuilding community. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person Education.
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology in k-12 teaching and learning:Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology Research & Development, 55, 223-252.
Hismanoglu, M. (2012). The impact of a curricular innovation on prospective EFL teachers’attitudes toward ICT integration into language instruction. International Journal of Instruction, 5(1), 183-202.
Hoepfl, M. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1).
Howard, A. (2009). Beyond technology: Children's learning in the age of digital culture.
58
European Journal of Communication, 24(3), 360-362.
Hsu, S. (2011). The relationship between teacher’s technology integration ability and usage.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(3), 309-325
Hur, J., Cullen, T., & Brush, T. (2010). Teaching for application: A model for assisting pre-service teachers with technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 161-182.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2005).Computers in education study. Retrieved from http://www.iea.nl/computers_edu_study.98.html.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE®). (2011). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/welcome.aspx.
Johnson, K., Lennon, S., Jasper, C., Damhorst, M., & Lakner, H. (2003). An application of Rogers’s innovation model: Use of the internet to purchase apparel, food, and
home furnishing products by small community consumers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 21(4), 185-196, doi: 10.1177/0887302X0402100405.
Jonassen, D., Howland J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003). Learning to solve problems withtechnology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: MerrillPrentice-Hall.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology and student learning:Barriers and promise. Journal of Science & Technology, 17(6), 560-565.
Keengwe, J., Pearson, D., & Smart, K. (2009). Technology integration: Mobile devices (iPods),constructivist pedagogy, and student learning. AACE Journal, 17(4), 333-346.
Kim, C., Lee, J., Merrill, M., Spector, J., & van Merroenboer, J. (2008). Foundations for the
Future. In Spector, J., Merrill, M., Merrienboer, J., & Driscoll, M. (Eds.). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). pp. 807-815. New York, NY: Routledge.
King, P. (2012). Technology and teaching philosophy. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(2), 161-168.
Koch, A., Heo, M., & Kush, J. (2012). Technology integration into pre-service teacher training. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 8(1), 1-14.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2011). Introducing technological pedagogical knowledge. In TheAmerican Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (Ed.). The handbook of
59
technological pedagogical content knowledge for teaching and teacher educators. pp. 3-29. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Learning Quest, Incorporated (2005). Chris Moersch. Retrieved fromhttp://www.drchrismoersch.com/.
Lin, M., & Lu, M. (2010). The study of teachers’ task values and self-efficacy in their
commitment and effectiveness for technology-instruction integration. US-China Education Review, 7(5), 1-10.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalitic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lipson, J. (1994). Ethical considerations in ethnography. In J. Morse (Ed.). Critical issues in qualitative research methods. pp. 333-355. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Miami Dade County Public Schools. (2012a). Retrieved from http://dadeschools.net/.
Miami Dade County Public Schools. (2012b). Retrieved from http://www.dadeschools.net/schools/schoolinformation/.
Micheletto, M. (2011). Conducting a classroom mini-experiment using an audience response system: Demonstrating the isolation effect. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8(8), 1-13.
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuringclassroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 22(11), 40-42.
Moersch, C. (1998). Enhancing students' thinking skills: Exploring model technology-integration Sites. Learning and Leading with Technology, 25(6), 50-53.
Moore-Hayes, C. (2011). Technology integration preparedness and its influence on teacher-efficacy. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(3), 1-15.
National Academy of Sciences (2005). The concerns-based adoption model (CBAM): A
model for change in individuals. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nas.edu/rise/backg4a.htm.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE®). (2012). The standard of excellence in teacher preparation. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/Public/AboutNCATE/QuickFacts/tabid/343/Default.aspx.
60
Noronha, K. (2012). Out of touch: As technology is increasingly ingrained in schoolcurriculums, it becomes apparent that a digital classroom does not mean a better classroom. The Guardian, 11, 1-3.
O’Bannon, B., & Vannatta, R. (2001). Developing the capacity to infuse technology.
National Forum of Applied Research Journal, 14(2), 9-25.
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K., Newby, Y., & Ertmer, P. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1321-1335.
Pelgrum, W., Janssen-Reinen, I., & Plomp, T. (2001). Schools, teachers, students, and Computers: A cross-national perspective. Twente, Netherlands: I.E.A.
Petko, D. (2011). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the ‘will, skill, too’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers and Education, 58, 1351-1359.
Prensky, M. (2008). The role of technology in teaching and the classrooom. Educational Technology, 6, 1-3.
Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Computers and Education, 58, 449-458.
Roblyer, M., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusions of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Russell, A. (1995). Stages learning in new technology: Naive adult email users.
Computers in Education, 25(4), 173-175.
Russell, A. (1996). Six stages for learning to use technology. Paper presented at
61
the American Educational Communications and Technology Association Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana. Abstract retrieved from http://www.russellsynergies.com.au/pdf/RussellSixStages96.pdf.
Saldana, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury, Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Suppes, P., & Searle, B. (1971). The computer teaches arithmetic. School Review, 79, 213-225.
Sweeny, B. (2003). The CBAM: A model of the people development process. Retrieved from
http://www.mentoringassociation.org/membersonly/%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20CBAM.html#Read.
Teclehaimanot, B., Mentzer, G., & Hickman, T. (2011). A mixed methods comparison of teacher education faculty perceptions of the integration of technology into their courses and student feedback on technology proficiency. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 5-21.
Toledo, C. (2005). A five-stage model of computer technology integration into teacher
education curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 177-191.
United States Department of Education. (2002). PL 107-110. The no child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html.
United States Department of Education. (2007). State strategies and practices for educationaltechnology: Volume I–examining the enhancing education through technology program. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/netts/netts-vol1.pdf.
United States Department of Education. (2012). President's FY 2013 Budget Request for the U.SDepartment of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget13/crosscuttingissues/edtech.doc.
United States Office of Management and Budget. (2007). Non-performing programs. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10003305.2005.html.
University of South Florida. (2011). The technology integration matrix (TIM). Retrieved from http://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/.
62
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario, Canada: The University of Western Ontario.
Vannatta, R. (2006). The intrepid explorer: Model of effective technology use for alleducators. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Chesapeake, Virginia.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wehrli, B. (2010). Technology as a fence and a bridge. Horace, 25(1), 4.
Wright, V., & Wilson, E. (2011). Teachers’ use of technology: Lessons learned from the teacher education program to the classroom. SRATE Journal, 20(2), 48-60.
Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspectives of technology integration. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 311-333.
Zhao, Y., & Bryant, F. (2006). Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to high levels of technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers’ technology integration after state mandated technology training. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 53-62. Retrieved from http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume5/Zhao.pdf.
Zuniga, R. (2010). Computer technology integration into the public classroom: A qualitativeupdate. Academic Leadership The Online Journal, 8(2).
63
Appendices
Appendix A
Personal Interview Questions for Teachers
1. A. Having lived and experienced computer technology integration into the public
school classroom, what are your feelings on this experience? Was it a positive
experience or a negative experience?
1. B. What are your thoughts on the current state of computer technology integration in
your district?
1. C. In your opinion, what is the most important factor or factors affecting the current
state of computer technology integration in your district?
64
1. D. Using a scale from one to ten, with ten being the highest, , how would you rank yourself in as a user of technology and why?
2. A. Do you have a computer at home?
2. B. Do you have other electronic data equipment at home; i.e., personal smart phone?
3. A. If you plan on how to integrate technology, where do you do most of your
planning, at work or outside?
3. B. Given all the demands on you as a teacher, elaborate on how much of a priority
computer technology integration into your classroom is to you and why you feel
the way that you do:
4. A. Are you familiar with how your district purchases computer technology for you?
4. B. Do you feel like you have some input on the purchasing process?
4. C. What are your thoughts on how computer technology is acquired for you to use as
a teacher in your district?
5. A. Can you name any initiative or program that has affected computer technology
integration, either negatively or positively coming from the (1) national level, (2)
state level, (3) vendor?
6. A. Do you think the size of your district has any impact, either positive or negative,
on the level of integration that has occurred in your district?
6. B. Do you think being rural versus urban has any impact, either positive or negative,
on the level of integration that has occurred in your district?
7. A.What do you see as the future of computer technology integration for public
schools?
7. B. If you could design a model or strategy for integrating computer technology to a
significantly higher level, what would that model look like? What would that
model include? Who would this model include?
65