HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE INTEGRATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Human Service Professions Widener University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education

By Karen S. Hertzler Center for Education March 2010

UMI Number: 3414547

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

UMI
Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3414547 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

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

Title of Dissertation:

HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS TOWARD THE INTEGRATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY

Author:

Karen S. Hertzler

Approved by:
Kathleen A. Bowes, Ed.D. ^aA/sygj C Nadfe6 C McHsnrv, Ed:

Widener University

Richard Thurlow, Ph.D.

A

kCUsUt Marcia V. Bolton, Ed.D.

Annemarie B. Jay, Ph.D.

Date: March 16,2010

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education.

Copyright by Karen S. Hertzler 2010

Acknowledgements

The journey through the dissertation writing process has been one of perseverance. The completion of this paper would not been possible without the guidance of Dr. Kathleen Bowes and the other members of my dissertation committee. A THANKS goes to the willing participants of my study as these teachers gave of their time to help me. As educators this group gives unselfishly each and every day to the students they teach. Their students do not know how lucky they are to have been taught by such dedicated professionals. The importance of education was instilled in me at an early age by my mom and dad. Mom and Dad - you are the best teachers I could have ever had. Thanks for all the support and guidance along the way. And to my friends who have traveled this journey with me, thanks for the encouragement and beverages. Mark - you are always there to help not only with course work but as a friend. It took seven years from start to finish but you stayed with me the entire voyage. Dolly - you helped to prove there is no place is too far. We did it!

iv

Abstract Many state technology standards, goals, and objectives affirm technology will improve student progress. Regardless of the claim, the statement that "teachers are good or bad, not because they are made of meat and bones or electronic circuits, but because they apply correctly or incorrectly teaching methods that are or are not relevant to the objectives and target audience," helps one to realize the connection between the statement and actual achievement (Dillenbourg, 2008). This statement suggests that the teacher is the key element to how technology is integrated within the classroom. The purpose of this case study was to determine high school teachers' perceptions of the use of instructional technology. The six (6) volunteer teachers received training through the Classrooms For the Future (CFF) initiative which was a state-wide project the provided grant money for training and technology for schools in Pennsylvania. This case study utilized a mixed method format in that quantitative and qualitative data was collected from the participants and analyzed. Data collected included information gathered from a teacher demographic survey, Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey, observation notes, and interviews. This collected information was analyzed. The participants of this study felt that technology was an instructional tool that should be used to enhance the content. Their actions and interview answers agreed with previous research about instructional technology. For technology to be implemented more effectively, the teachers must be provided with technical support and staff development. Technology hardware and software must be accessible to the teachers. v

Through the analysis of the data, it was determined that CFF had little influence on teachers' perceptions or teaching practices when using technology in the classroom. Teachers did not provide enough information to determine if CFF had a positive affect on student achievement. Further study needs to investigate the effect instructional technology use has upon student achievement and behavior. Additional information should be gathered to determine if a teacher's level of confidence affects how technology is integrated into the classroom.

Keywords: Classrooms For the Future, instructional technology, teacher perception

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem Classroom for the Future Initiative Requirements to Participation Requirements for administrators Requirements for teachers Requirements for students Purpose of the Study Research Questions Variables Assumptions Significance of the Problem Definitions Chapter Two: Review of Literature Evolution of Technology in Education Understanding Instructional Technology and Its Uses Teacher Perceptions Toward Instructional Technology Teachers' Instructional Practices Using Technology Instructional strategies using technology Teacher's Perception of Student Achievement Summary vii

1 2 4 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 12 15 15 19 22 30 32 34 37

Chapter Three: Methodology Research Design Participants Procedure

39 40 41 46

Schedule of Interviews and Audio-Taping of Interviews and Classroom Observations 48 Formal Interviews Observations Instrumentation 48 48 49

Demographic Survey and Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey 49 Interview Questions Observation Rubric Data Analysis Chapter Four: Discussions and Findings Demographic Survey and Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey Classroom Observations Case Studies of Participants Case study - Teacher AA Case study - Teacher BB Case study - Teacher CC Case study - Teacher DD Case study - Teacher EE viii 51 51 52 54 54 57 58 59 65 70 74 77

Case study - Teacher FF Research Question One Demographic and Technology Beliefs and Competency Surveys Interviews Observations Research Question Two Demographic and Technology Beliefs and Competency Surveys Interviews Observations Research Question Three Demographic and Technology Beliefs and Competency Surveys Interviews Observations Conclusion Chapter Five: Discussion Summary of the Results Limitations found in the Study Generalizability Value of the Qualitative Approach Recommendations of Future Research Conclusion References Appendixes Appendix A - Letter from Superintendent Appendix B - Letter to Teachers ix

83 87 87 91 96 98 98 100 108 111 Ill 112 116 120 126 126 132 133 133 134 135 137 147 147 148

Appendix C - Demographic and Technology Belief and Competency Survey... 149 Appendix D - Teacher Interview Questions Appendix E - Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric 156 157

List of Tables Table 1 - Ethnicity of School District Involved in the Study Table 2 - Technology Level Tiers Table 3 - Overview of Participants Table 4 - Teacher Perceptions of Technology Integration into the Classroom 42 43 46 87

Table 5 - Technology Beliefs Regarding Instructional Strategies when Incorporating Technology 98 Table 6 - Teacher Beliefs Regarding Student Achievement when Using Technology

Ill

xi

Chapter One Introduction to the Problem Technology has become an integral part of life in today's society. One begins the day by waking up in the morning to the sounds of the satellite radio and the smell of coffee already brewing in the kitchen. Clothing for the day is chosen with information taken from the up-to-the-minute forecast provided by Doppler radar on the plasma, high definition television. By the end of the workday, one has worked all day with the assistance of a computer or an attached peripheral. Before retiring, one still has to respond to emails using high-speed cable Internet to send digital pictures of the children to relatives. Using this simple scenario, one can observe technology's integration into many aspects of daily life. Technology has both simplified and improved contemporary life in many ways. Technology has become routine in daily life. No one or place is immune from the effects of technology especially not the educational setting. Schools have been unable to avoid the influx of technology into the classroom. The surge of technology into the educational setting began when the report, A Nation at Risk written in 1983, listed computer science as one of the five (5) new basics in education (Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2005). This report was supported in 2001 by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) which is a rebirth of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESEA) recommending all students on the eighth grade level be technologically literate. The report also emphasizes educators should be able to effectively communicate, locate, and manage information using some form of technology to do so. (Culp et al., 2005).

Education reform actually began with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and gave special significance to technology for education as it was listed as one of its thirteen sections of the act (Congress of U.S., 1994). The ESEA was reauthorized in 1994 as the Improving America's Schools Act. In this act, technology was the focus of Title III - Technology for Education. This act is also referred to as the Technology for Education Act of 1994 (Congress of U.S., 1994). Five years later, the Clinton administration again reauthorized the ESEA of1965, which is known as the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of1999 (Department of Education, 1999). Again, Title III was devoted to technology for education. A focus of Title III was to stimulate the development and use of innovative technologies to create engaging teaching and learning environments (US Department of Education, 1999). Emphasis on the importance of technology also forms a major part of the No Child Left Behind Act of2001 (NCLB). NCLB recommends that by eighth grade all students should be technologically literate. The report also emphasizes that educators should be able to effectively communicate, locate and manage information using some form of technology (Culp et al., 2005). Classrooms for the Future Initiative In Pennsylvania, an initiative entitled Classrooms for the Future (CFF) has provided funding for technology and the training of teachers to utilize technological equipment and software programs. The main goal of the CFF initiative is to increase attendance, student engagement, time spent on task, assignment completion, and course rigor. The expectation is that successful implementation of the program will see

decreases in disruptions in the classroom, drop-outs, and overall inappropriate student behaviors. The use of sound practices utilizing technology will ultimately improve teacher and student attitudes (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2006). According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) website (2006), Governor Edward G. Rendell launched the CFF initiative so school districts could build on the existing technology in the schools. The landmark program was to provide $200

million over a three (3) year period to districts all across Pennsylvania in an effort to supply every teacher and student in the benefiting district with access to a laptop. The curricular areas being targeted by this program include English, mathematics, science, and social studies. By providing teacher and student access to state of the art technology, students will be better prepared to compete globally. During the first year, approximately 100 schools were selected to receive a portion of the grant monies. The selection was based upon need, readiness, geographic distribution, and the strength of the strategic implementation plans. "Classroom for the Future" classrooms allowed teachers to have a computer, polyvision board and projector, imaging software, Web camera, and video cameras. All equipment received by districts was selected by PDE. With PDE having the sole power to select and purchase the wares, increased purchasing power was attained. With the increased purchasing power more equipment was bought for the participating schools. Most schools incurred no cost to receive the equipment (Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d.). A mostly suburban district located in south central Pennsylvania was selected to participate in the first year or "Rollout" of the CFF initiative. This selected district is

served by two (2) high schools. The two high schools shared in the $20 million fund available during the inaugural year. The program was supplemented by $6 million ($4 million in state funds and $2 million in federal funding) in additional resources which defrayed the cost of teacher training and ongoing online support (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2006). The funding paid for a technology coach for the two high schools and a technology leader in each building. It was the hope of the project to reach all schools during the three-year life of the initiative. The initiative included school districts and Career and Technical Centers located across the entire state of Pennsylvania. Requirements for participation. Requirements for administrators. The program set forth requirements for school districts to follow in order to participate. All administrators and teachers from selected districts must participate in a minimum of 2 days of PDE-sponsored CFF hands-on development. The principals were committed to participation in a mandatory pre-grant seminar on leadership and support necessary to implement, and continue to implement, needed change in instructional practices which occur as part of the CFF program. Building level administrators had to adopt technology-integrated program management practices and guaranteed a commitment to all teachers engaged in this initiative. The building administrators must allow coaches access to technology classrooms where teachers are utilizing the technology and provide input to address concerns and needs Requirements for teachers. Each teacher must participate in a minimum of 30 hours of additional professional development that combines offline and online training and use professional development experiences to integrate the technology appropriately

into their teaching practices by adopting practices that regularly integrate technology with teaching and learning. The teachers were requested to commit to adopting the teaching strategies put forth by CFF and integrate technology on a consistent basis. The classroom teacher must commit to professional development which was provided as part of CFF. PDE contracted with Learning Sciences International to design job-embedded on-line courses that must be taken by participating educators. The educators must complete a 30 hour course as long as the school or district is receiving funding (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2006). The course series offered were entitled 21st Century Teaching and Learning. The courses in the series are either required or optional. According to PDE (2006), the courses are: The Need for Change (required), Authentic Teaching and Learning (required), Inquiry-based Learning (optional), Differentiated Instruction (optional), Project-based Learning (optional). Requirements for students. One final stipulation placed on the participating schools was the requirement to promote student and teacher use of technology in the school, including student participation in events which showcase student use of technology (Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d). The main goals of the CFF initiative was to increase attendance, student engagement, time spent on task, assignment completion, and course rigor. A successful implementation of the program would see decreases in disruptions in the classroom, dropouts, and overall inappropriate student behaviors. The use of sound practices

utilizing technology will ultimately improve teacher and student attitudes (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2006). Although the primary focus of CFF is to improve the overall behavior of students through sound pedagogical practices using the provided technology, this study focused on the high school teachers of the participating schools. CFF provide teachers with training introducing the educators to sound teaching practices using technology. These teachers were provided with the needed tools to implement technology within the classroom. The question begs to be asked, "Are the teachers making the needed changes to instructional practices to include the integration of technology?" Purpose of the Study This study attempted to determine high school teachers' perceptions toward the use of technology as an instructional tool. Determining a teacher's feelings toward implementing technology may provide critical information as to whether the use of technology will contribute to student success. Ultimately, the perceptions of teachers will determine if technology will be utilized as an instructional tool. If teachers do not use the technology, one will never be able to fully determine if technology does indeed improve student achievement. Research Questions Given the purpose of the study, these are the questions posed: 1. How have teachers' perceptions (attitudes) toward instructional technology changed as a result of the implementation of CFF? 2. Has CFF changed teachers' instructional practices and in what way?

3. What are the teachers' perceptions of the influences of CFF on their students? Variables Throughout the study, the dependent variable is the use of instructional technology. The independent variables are identified as teacher perceptions toward instructional technology, change in instructional practice, and technology influence on students. The research attempted to establish a connection between a teacher's perceptions regarding the use of instructional technology within the classroom. If a teacher's perceptions are negative will his/her use of technology be less than a teacher who believes technology is a valued teaching tool? Another intention of this study was to determine if teachers feel technology has an influence on students. For example, if a teacher utilizes technology will he/she note an increase in student on task behaviors thus leading to positive student achievement on assessments such as the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA). Assumptions The researcher made assumptions based upon teacher responses provided as part of the interview process and observed behaviors during classroom observations. It was assumed the teacher interviews would serve as concrete examples of individuals who have used technology as part of their teaching practices. This researcher made the assumption the subjects of this study would provide open, honest, and sincere responses when answering the interview questions.

It was also assumed that teachers would conduct typical lessons when being observed, that is the participants would demonstrate a lesson that is routinely provided to their students. Another assumption was the teachers' responses given and observed lessons would be a significant connection between technology integration and teaching practices. Significance of the Problem As stated in the introduction, technology is becoming a significant part of the classroom due to current legislation such as NCLB. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) is a national organization responsible for the development of the standards guiding most state mathematics standards and school district mathematics curriculum. NCTM feels "technology is essential in teaching and learning mathematics, it influences the mathematics that is taught and enhances student's learning" (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000, p. T22). NCTM is just one organization responsible for curricular standards that included a component related to technology in its standards. Irving and Bell (2004) state if the educational world is supportive of the national goals for educational technology, then all curricula needs to embrace technology integration. That translates to all subject curricula needing to develop standards which incorporate technology. Another point made by Irving and Bell (2004) was that teachers must be provided with a technology course during teacher preparation programs. Training for future teachers should include the exploration and development of technology-infused lessons and practice teaching lessons

rich in technology. Teachers must know how to enrich student learning by using technology. When provided with technology to use to aid instruction, it is expected a teacher will employed it to improve student learning. In his report, Burke (2001) discussed the use of computers in the mathematics classroom. At the onset of the 1990's, most computers were utilized by administrators, business education classes, and computer science classes. It was estimated a majority of the schools were utilizing a computer less than 30% of the time (Burke, 2001). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports in 2005, the average public school contained 154 instructional computers compared to 90 in 1998 (2006). In 2000 - 2001, 57% of teachers agreed with the statement, "Computers and other technology for many classroom(s) were sufficiently available" (NCES, 2005, p.l). Teachers indicated two primary uses of the computer. First, the computer was used to communicate with parents, students, and colleagues, as well as for the posting of assignments. The second reason to utilize the computer was to complete preparation and administrative tasks such as creating instructional materials, obtaining sample lesson plans, obtaining information for the lessons, and creating a multimedia presentation. According to NCES, the use of technology as a learning tool was limited. Several studies examine use and/or lack of use of technology in the classroom. One such study by Forgasz (2006) supports the premise that learning will be more engaging for students when enhanced technology is employed. The study conducted by Forgasz (2006) in Victoria, Australia found issues which both fostered and inhibited

10

technology use. In this study, secondary teachers were surveyed twice over a three (3) year period. Those factors reported as deterring the use of technology included the availability of the computer room, not enough computers, lack of time to review software, and the quality of the software. Forgasz (2006) reported lack of availability of computer labs topped the list in both the 2001 and 2003 study years. In another study by Martin and Shulman (2006), both use of technology by teachers and teacher attitudes were included. They reported technology usage varied from district to district, school to school, and teacher to teacher. The Martin and Shulman (2006) study listed four general factors found to have some effect on teaching practices and attitudes. The factors included school and/or district leadership, participation in quality professional development, teachers' access to adequate technology resources, and pedagogical beliefs regarding technology use (Martin and Shulman, 2006). Martin and Shulman's (2006) study concluded with the 2006 Instructional Practices and Classroom Uses of Technology Survey being given to both participants of the INTEL Teach Essentials (ITE) and non-participants via the web. The focus of the survey was to ask teachers about instructional practices, classroom use of technology, and experiences with technology-focused professional development. The outcome of the survey was to determine teacher's instructional beliefs, instructional practices, access to technology, and uses of the technology. The results of the Martin and Shulman (2006) survey stated participants who were enrolled in the ITE program used technology more in their teaching practices than those

11

teachers not receiving the training. Technology uses that were noted to support teaching included emailing other staff or administration, grading, creating handouts, and accessing the Internet to aid in the development of a lesson or activity. To support instructional practices, the teachers also used technology to access CD-Rom, create alternative assignments, communicate with parents, analyze information, and present information to students. It was noted the ITE trained participants used technology more with students than non-participants. The trained teachers had students working on assignments using computers outside the classroom, accessing websites, viewing and creating videos/movies, and writing reports/papers (Martin & Shulman, 2006). Waits and Demana (2001) found although teachers may be excited about technology in the classroom, student access to desktop computers was limited. Thus, the teacher's ability to use computers as an instructional tool was limited. Another critical factor noted by Waits and Demana (2001) was the need for effective professional development for current teachers in order to stay up to date with uses of technology there by providing lessons infused with the latest tools. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) is another organization recognizing the expectation for teacher to use technology to increase student learning. This organization has set the bar high for technology use in the classrooms. One of the standards set forth by ISTE in the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) is to facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity in which, "[t]eachers use their knowledge of subject matter, teaching and learning, and technology

12

to facilitate experiences that advance student learning, creativity, and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments" (International Society for Technology Education, 2008, p. 1). Definitions Classrooms for the Future (CFF') - A monetary grant provided by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as part of an initiative to provide school districts the opportunity to equip classrooms with technology including a computer, polyvision board and projector, imaging software, Web camera and video cameras (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2006). Constructivist - The focus is on the student-centered learning having students collaborating, analyzing the quality of information, problem-solving, and communicating to complete activities (Martin & Shulman, 2006). Horizon Report: 2009 K-12 - An annual collaborative report between the New Media Consortium and the Consortium for School Networking (ScSN). This report is made possible through a grant provided by Microsoft Corporation (Johnson, Levine, Smith, & Smythe, 2009). Intel Teach Essentials (ITE) - ITE is a program offered as part of the Intel Teach Program which engages both teachers and students in the development of 21st century skills and the integration of technology for teaching and learning. The focus of the program has teachers and students collaborating, analyzing the quality of information, problem-solving, and communicating using online resources and technology tools (Martin & Shulman, 2006).

13

Technology - According to many literature sources are instructional tools such as computers/laptops, software programs, televisions, interactive or polyvision boards, Internet, Intranet, DVD players, digital cameras, Ipods, MP3 players, other multimedia tools. The long list of technological tools can be divided into three classifications: i.) teacher tools, ii.) presentation tools, and iii.) interactive tools (Dunlap, 2002; Goos, 2005). Zone of Free Movement (ZFM) - An additional social setting developed by Valsiner (1997) to the Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development. According to Valisner (1997), this zone represents the environmental constraints, which limit one's freedom of thought and action. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) - The distance between a child's independent problem solving capability and the higher level of performance that can be achieved under adult guidance or in collaboration with more advanced peers. This "zone of proximal development" was developed by Lev Vygotsky, a Russian born psychologist whose interests laid in the areas of developmental psychology, child development, and education (Valsiner, 1997). Vygotsky maintained the child follows the adult's example. The child develops the ability to do independently complete certain tasks (North Central Region Educational Laborartory, 2004). Goos (2005), Valsiner (1997) and others note teachers follow the same developmental process as they learn their craft. Zone of Promoted Action (ZPA) - An additional social setting developed by Valsiner (1997) based upon Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development. This zone identifies relationships which influence a teacher's attitude and development. The

14

experiences within the zones will become the foundations that will set the tone for technology usage by the teachers (Goos, 2005; Valsiner, 1997).

15

Chapter Two Review of Related Literature and Research Evolution of Technology in Education The genesis of current educational trends related to technology can be traced to the recommendations provided in the 1983 federal report, "A Nation at Risk." In this report, it was proposed that students needed to develop computer literacy skills prior to graduation (Culp, et al., 2005). The federal government has continued to address the needs through recommendations of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. In NCLB, the skills are not solely limited to computer skills. The skills must encompass all technology that can be utilized as an effective pedagogical tool (Culp et al., 2005). If students are to become proficient in the area of technology, the teachers need to be able to use the technology in the process of educating students. Teachers must determine which available technology should be utilized to improve student achievement. This is not the first time educational reform has addressed technology. Education reform actually began with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) which gave special significance to technology including it as one of the thirteen sections of this legislation (Congress of U.S., 1994). The ESEA was reauthorized in 1994 as the Improving America's Schools Act also called the Technology for Education Act of 1994. In this act, technology was the focus of Title III - Technology for Education. The Act notes limited exposure of teachers and students to technology as a concern. It is noted that "planned and creative uses of technology combined with teachers adequately trained in the use of technology can reshape our Nation's traditional

16

method of providing education and empower teachers to create an environment in which students are challenged through rigorous, rich classroom instruction provided at a pace suited to each student's learning style and in which students have increased opportunities to develop higher order thinking and technical skills" (Congress of U.S., 1994, p. 126). Five years later, the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 under the Clinton administration again reauthorized the ESEA of 1965 (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Again, Title III was devoted to technology for education. A focus of Title III was to stimulate the development and use of innovative technologies that create engaging teaching and learning environments. Also, the focus of teacher preparation was to train teachers to effectively integrate technology into their classrooms so to assist students in attaining higher academic standards (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Emphasis on the importance of technology also forms a major part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB recommends that by eighth grade all students should be technologically literate. The report also emphasizes that educators should be able to effectively communicate, locate, and manage information using some form of technology (Culp et al., 2005). To support the legislation, the federal government provided funding of $700 million for the Fiscal Years (FY) 2002 - 2004 for Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT). This funding was authorized as Title II-D of the NCLB Act. The intent of EETT was to enable schools to increase student achievement as well as compete in a global economy. In 2007, $272 million was provided for the fiscal year (FY). For Pennsylvania during the FY 2004, $22 million of funding was provided. In FY 2006 and

17

FY 2007, the Commonwealth received $9 million which was a significant decrease in funding from the previous years (ISTE, 2007). The decrease in funding also affected Iowa. The Hawkeye state received a total of $2 million during the fiscal years of 2006 and 2007 down from $3 million in FY 2004. Wisconsin endured over a 50% decrease as funding dropped from $8 million in FY 2004 to $3 million per fiscal year for 2006 and 2007. These cuts have had significant, detrimental impact on the ability to move schools and the educational system into the 21st century according to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) which is the guiding force behind the integration of technology into the educational arena (International Society for Technology in Education, 2007). The ISTE has established technology standards for teachers and students. The National Educational Technology Standards and Performance Indicators for Teachers also known as NETS-T, states teachers should meet the standards as they "design, implement, and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; enrich professional practice; and provide positive models for students, colleagues, and the community" (International Society for Technology in Education, 2008, p.l). The NETST are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Facilitate and Inspire Student learning and Creativity Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experience and Assessments Model Digital-Age Work and Learning Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership

18

Not only have technology councils set standards, but curricular organizations have begun to establish technology standards as well. Since 1989, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has been a driving force in providing standards designed to continually improve math instruction, as well as provide a challenging curriculum. Many of the state standards and district curriculum have a synergy with the published NCTM standards. The most recent augmentation to the standards is a technology component. Although specifics are not provided regarding the appropriate method to incorporate technology, general information regarding technology use is written into the standards (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). Technology is being intertwined into education whether as part of curriculum or as a stand-alone component. The National Council for Social Studies encourages teachers to provide student opportunities to analyze and evaluate the effects of changing technologies on the global community. The Council states a critical component of "powerful" social studies teaching includes the effect use of technology (National Council for Social Studies, 2002, p. 12). The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) state "students use a variety of technological and information resources (e.g., libraries, databases, computer networks, video) to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge" (International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English, 1996). Irving and Bell (2004) state if the educational world is supportive of the national goals for educational technology then all curricula need to embrace technology integration. Math has already taken that step with the adoption of NCTM Principals and Standards

19

which include a component on technology integration (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). Another point made by Irving and Bell (2004) was that teachers must be provided with a technology course during teacher preparation programs. Training for future teachers should include the exploration and development of technology-infused lessons and practice teaching lessons rich in technology. Teachers must know how to enrich student learning by using technology. Understanding Instructional Technology and Its Uses Determining an all encompassing definition for technology is difficult as each day new advances and plug-ins related to technology are being introduced to the public and educational society. The literature indicates much of the past research has focused on technology as being computer/laptop and software. This more traditional explanation of technology as a pedagogical tool is valuable; however, it does not encompass the vast spectrum of technological tools available to the current classroom teacher. Current technology in today's classroom includes smartboards, digital cameras, projectors, and other plug in devices. It is important to note that the aforementioned technology tools are described in the Classrooms For the Future (CFF) project (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2006). This information developed by several sources leads to a far more inclusive definition for technology. A portion of the definition includes electronic technologies such as computer software applications as stated by Goos (2005). To further augment the definition of technology, it needs to include the network within the organization known as the Intranet. The connection outside the organization is the Internet most commonly referred to as the World Wide Web (Assiri, 2003). Software,

20

emailing, and projection tools need to be included in the definition and are referenced by numerous sources such as Forgarz (2006) and Irving and Bell (2004). A survey compiled in 1999 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported approximately half of the public school teachers in the United States had access to a computer or the Internet in the classroom. Ninety-nine percent of public school teachers stated they had access to a computer or the Internet somewhere in the school. Of this group, the educators used the tools for a variety of educational reasons. Sixty-one percent of the teachers assigned students to complete work using word processing programs. Fifty-one percent of teachers required students to complete research using the computer or Internet. Fifty percent of the instructors used technology as a tool for drill and practice. Problem solving assignments were made by fifty percent of the teachers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). Teachers from the Capital Area Intermediate Unit located in south central Pennsylvania along with all other intermediate units in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania completed the Pennsylvania Technology Inventory (PATI) at the conclusion of the 2007 - 2008 school year. This survey collected data from 2,409 teachers of this IU regarding their use of technology. School Administrators, School Technology Coordinators and LEA Technology Directors provided information as well. The survey asked questions related to funding for technology, leadership, planning technologysupported instruction (Metiri Group, 2008). This data states technology is being used but is this use making a difference in student achievement and behavior?

21

The data collected would appear to indicate teachers are using technology for instructional purposes but were participants totally honest on this self-rating survey? Also, would their observations support the responses? Questions addressed to the teachers targeted instruction. Forty-nine percent of the teachers indicated they agree that they are comfortable planning lessons involving student use of technology during a lesson. It was reported that technologies are regularly used to enhance learning in the classroom by over sixty percent of the teachers. Sixty-two percent of the teachers participating in the survey would agree or strongly agree that the technologies which are selected to be used during a lesson are based on current research on their effectiveness (Metiri Group, 2008). Several factors have been reported to influence a teacher's use of technology. Groff and Mouza (2008) suggest factors such as: (a) legislative factors, (b) district/schoollevel factors, (c) factors associated with the teacher, (d) factors associated with the technology-enhanced project, (e) factors associated with the student, and (f) factors inherent to technology itself influence the use of technology. Factors associated to the teacher are further categorized as the Context, the Innovator, the Innovation, and the Operator according to Groff and Mouza (2008). The "Context" is the support and resources including hardware and software provided to the teacher by the school or district as well as the manpower. The "Innovator" is the teacher whose attitudes and beliefs affect technology integration. The "Innovation" would be the use of the equipment. Finally, the operators would be the students. The students' comfort levels and use of technology would be considered a challenge when incorporating the tools (Groff & Mouza, 2008).

22

Other authors have identified obstacles preventing teachers from integrating technology into their teaching practices. Ertmer (1999) identified first-order and secondorder barriers. First-order barriers are those which are extrinsic to the teacher such as resources, training, and support. Measuring this type of barrier is easy as one can count the number or computers in a school or courses being offered to teach computer integration. Second-order barriers are more difficult to measure as they are personal feelings of the teachers. These are the barriers that Ertmer (1999) states will interfere with or impede change. These obstacles are found in the teachers' beliefs regarding teaching with the technology. The factors are more difficult to overcome as they deal with personal perceptions and attempting to change personal beliefs. These are the barriers which may impede the implementation of CFF. Surveys and research indicate technology is being used within the classroom. The first order barriers such as lack of support, training, and resources may be the reason for technology not being used. So one must ask who is using technology and how are they using it? Do teachers' beliefs such as not having time to learn, and/or lacking the confidence play a crucial role in the implementation of technological best practices? Teacher Perceptions Toward Instructional Technology The challenges or obstacles which may be actual or perceived prevent technology from being integrated into the lessons. These teacher-related factors identified by Groff and Mouza (2008) are "Innovator" and "Innovation." The teachers' perceptions would be

23

a second-order barrier as identified by Ertmer (1999). However one identifies the factor, the teacher's perceptions plays a role in the integration of technology into the classroom. A study reported by Goos (2005) examined the beliefs of beginning secondary school mathematics teachers. The participants engaged in a rigorous course of study with special attention paid to integration of technology and the changes which occurred due to environment, actions, and beliefs, All subjects were willing to use technology and felt confident in using it. The principle framework of the Goos (2005) study was based on Valisner's two zone concept to represent the development of teachers and was built upon the social development theories presented by Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky's work included the development of the concept of "Zone of Proximal Development" (ZPD). To further explain, Vygotsky theory of socially mediated cognitive development states adults influence a child's learning of the language, number systems, and even computers. This adult influence pushes the child beyond his/her current development (Schetz and Stremmel, 1994). Vygotsky's ZPD is applied to the educational setting when the teacher's learning is thought to be the symbolic space where the novice teacher's emerging skills begin to develop with the guidance of more knowledgeable peers or supervisors (Valsiner, 1997). Valsiner (1997) continues to point out the gap between present and potential ability is not the only factor which may influence the development and socialization of a new teacher. Valsiner (1997) provided additional social settings. Those settings are the Zone of Free Movement (ZFM) and the Zone of Promoted Actions (ZPA). Simply stated, these

24

two zones provide an explanation for the dynamic relationships which occur within the teaching environment. These identified relationships will influence a teacher's attitude and development. The experiences within the zones will become the foundations that will set the tone for technology usage by the teachers. Goos (2005) contends teachers learn the same as developing children. The school setting and support played a critical role in the integration of the technology by the participants according to Goos (2005). The professional development of these novice teachers was affected by the positive or negative influences. Goos noted the factors as resource availability, support, curriculum and assessment requirements, and individual pre-service training. Forgasz (2006) supports the premise of many researchers in the educational field that learning will be enhanced by the use of technology which is engaging for students. The study conducted by Forgasz (2006) in Victoria, Australia found issues which fostered technology and those factors which inhibited its use. Forgasz surveyed teachers who taught in secondary classrooms twice over a three (3) year period. Those physical barriers which deterred the use of technology included the availability of the computer room, not enough computers, lack of time to review software, and the quality of the software. Forgasz (2006) reported lack of availability of computer labs topped the list in both the 2001 and 2003 study years. The instrument developed and used to collect the data was entitled You and Your Student, Mathematics and Computers (Forgasz, 2006). The questions used were developed as a result of previous research. The questions were grouped into eight (8)

25

categories with yes/no responses or five (5) point Likert scale. Much attention was paid to the section entitled "Your reasons for using/not using computers to teach mathematics", as well as the section, "About you and computers." At least 80% of the teachers reported they had average computer skills in both surveys. Fifty-eight percent of the teachers felt confident in their ability to use the computer to teach mathematics. In 2003, 68% felt confident to teach with the computer. Although the study stated it as not significant, the teachers' confidence and competence level were slightly higher in 2003 compared to 2001 (Forgasz, 2006). The factors listed by the teachers which contributed to computer use included: software, availability of computers for student use, teacher confidence, supportive administration, technical support, student enjoyment to use computers, professional development, and developed student skills. The top ranked items for the survey in 2001 was the quality, variety, motivation, fun, and relevance of software. In the 2003 survey, availability of computer and/or computer laboratories ranked first. Teacher confidence, skills, experience, and enjoyment was ranked third in 2001 and second in 2003 (Forgasz, 2006). Several factors were provided which discouraged teacher use of computers. In the 2001 and 2003 surveys, the same item topped the list. The top concern reported was access to computers and/or computer laboratories. The second factor on both lists was the need and time for professional development. Technical problem tied for second in 2001 but dropped to fifth in 2003 (Forgasz, 2006).

26

The results of this study are supported by other researchers such as Goos (2005) and Martin and Shulman (2006). Access to technology, teacher attitudes, and professional development play critical roles in the effective use of technology as a pedagogical tool according to these sources. Although an informal study, Levine and Wasmuth (2004) conducted a study in which students were provided with laptops. The researcher found although teachers may be excited about technology in the classroom, student access to desktop computers was limited. Thus, the teacher's ability to use the computers as an instructional tool was limited. Another critical factor noted by Levine and Wasmuth (2004) was the need for effective professional development. This factor is a reoccurring theme in the literature and will be addressed as part of this study as CFF contains a professional development component. In the article, Factors that encourage or inhibit computer use for the secondary mathematics teaching, Forgasz (2006) presented data related to teacher use of technology. Forgasz (2006) states "It is widely believed in Australian educational circles and in society at large that (in regard to) students' learning, their teacher must want to use the technology and be enabled to do so" (Forgasz, 2006, p. 77). The author continues by identifying the factors which will encourage or inhibit teachers' use of technology. Teachers were divided into user and non-user categories based upon amount of times a teacher used the computer with students during a term. A user was required to use the computer once per term. A school year consisted of four terms. Users report lack of computer lab availability as the top reason for not using technology. The top two (2)

27

reasons given by the resultant non-users were lack of confidence and lack of time to preview software. Non-users used the computer less than one time per term (Forgasz, 2006). As stated previously, teachers' attitudes are affected by their own learning. Although most of the research describes experiences of pre-service teachers, the information by several researchers (Goos, 2005; Forgasz, 2006; Suharwoto & Lee, 2005) indicates providing learning opportunities will have a positive effect on teacher attitudes about technology. Proper technological integration should include staff development, which incorporates ample time to prepare to use the technology and hands on training. Ferguson (2004) reports in the case studies of five teachers that personal beliefs about technology and teaching styles will dictate the use of technology when teaching a lesson. When teachers felt they used technology appropriately, the use of technology coincided with the individual teaching styles. The use of technology will require a classroom centered on learning as opposed to teacher-centered (Ferguson 2004). Judson (2006, p. 583) posed the question of "how is technology being used?" After finding the answer to this basic question, then the question arises "why is the technology being used in that particular way?" Judson went beyond the studies which counted the number of computers in a school or surveys about teachers' usage. The survey data may have been inaccurate because teachers may have reported inaccurate information about technology use. His approach was to observe teacher use of technology. He asked two research questions: 1.) How do teacher beliefs about instruction relate to the practice

28

of integrating technology and 2.) How do teacher attitudes toward technology relate to the practice of integrating technology? (Judson, 2006). Thirty-two teachers from both elementary and secondary levels volunteered to participate in the study. All teachers were observed for a minimum of thirty (30) minutes conducting a lesson using technology. Some teachers were observed two days so the observer could grasp the true sense of teaching practices. During the observation the researcher recorded notes regarding teacher practices, student engagement, characteristics of the technology integration, and other related occurrences. Teacher attitudes and beliefs were measured using the Instructional Practices and Classroom Uses of Technology Survey. Correlation analyses were conducted to find relationships between beliefs and technology usage. Observed teaching practices did not significantly correlate to teachers' beliefs about instruction, and between teaching practices and attitudes toward technology. To continue with teacher usage of technology, Monaghan (2004) examined two themes. The first theme was a division between those teachers who see technology as something that enables them to become less "didactic" in their interaction with students and those who perceive change in practice as problematic. Research pertaining to the second theme focused on teachers' practices in mathematics. This is a recent phenomenon because the research reported to date has largely focused on forms of knowledge and on beliefs, with little attention to the whole experience of using technology in the classroom. He examined his themes by providing stories and data from his project on teachers using technology. Monaghan attempted to report a "holistic" account of teacher usage.

29

In summary, those factors such as availability of computers, time to review programs, and quality software which encourage some educators, are the same factors which discourage their colleagues from using computers. The results from the 2001 and 2003 survey are quite similar (Forgasz, 2006). This is a concern if information from the study was provided to schools and steps were not taken to eliminate the barriers to computer use. A further concern exists in information collected from the most recent teacher surveys given as part of the Forgasz study was similar to the data collected 10 years earlier. This would indicate limited efforts were being made to address the concerns. The factors identified by the Australian-based teachers were similar to those concerns stated by teachers around the world (Forgasz, 2006). Lawrenz, Gravely, and Ooms (2006) reported on the use of technology in their study entitled, "Perceived Helpfulness and Amount of Use of Technology in Science and Classes at Different Grades Levels." This group of researchers concurs with other researchers in that technology is being used in the classrooms but is limited by availability, curricular materials intended to optimize its use, and the lack of experienced teachers using technology effectively. Another finding from Lawrenz, Gravely, and Ooms (2006) was that computers are not utilized to their potential despite evidence that the use of technology does indeed improve student achievement and attitude. Technology is mentioned in both the mathematics and science standards. Information from this study reports forty percent of teachers use technology occasionally. One (1) in five (5) teachers use technology

30

regularly and ten percent of teachers do not use technology to enhance understanding, to further explore concepts, or to assist in student organization. Harvey and Charnitski (1998) make reference to the work of Vygotsky as well. They feel Vygotsky's theories offer structure in the development of technology-based mathematics curriculum in congruence with NCTM goals and objectives. According to Harvey and Charnitski (1998), if incorporated correctly with NCTM goals regarding technology, Vygotskian theory will promote high level thinking skills and support concept development. According to Waits and Demana (2001, p. 3), "change can occur if we put the potential for change in the hands of everyone." The authors emphasize that if change is to occur regarding the use of technology, effective professional development must occur. This staff development must address conceptual and pedagogical concerns. Much of their viewpoint is based upon the greater use of the graphing calculators in math and science classes. To reiterate, technology is being used by many educators. For some the availability of technology pushed educators to use the technology. For others, even though the technology is available, the lack of confidence, skills, and experience deter the use in the classroom. These issues may be overcome with proper staff development. With the proper training, the literature suggests teachers will use technology as yet another strategy to increase student achievement.

31

Teachers' Instructional Practices Using Technology In a study by Goos (2005), the researcher described the use of technology from a socio-cultural perspective. Goos views technology as a "social" tool that can re-organize cognitive processes and transform classroom social practices. Technology, if used properly, can be a means to incorporating new teaching methods into one's repertoire. Goos identifies these four (4) metaphors to describe how technology can be used to develop new teaching practices. The metaphors are master, servant, partner, and extension of self At the lowest level of teacher comfort, technology is considered to be the master of the classroom. This occurs when the teacher's knowledge and competence are limited. The use of technology at this level is forced upon the teacher through external means (Goos, 2005). Directly above the master level, the teacher uses technology as a servant. This occurs when the teacher uses technology as a substitute for other implements such as the pencil and paper. Using technology as a partner according to Goos (2005) means a potential exists for the students to have more responsibility for their learning. The teacher is becoming more comfortable with the use of technology when teaching. The goal of the educator when using technology is this teaching tool becomes an extension of self with it being integrated seamlessly into the everyday teaching responsibilities of the teacher. The result is students achieving and accepting the responsibility for their own learning (Goos, 2005). When a teacher has reached the plateau of using technology as an extension of self, most likely the teacher is using exemplary practices when incorporating technology

32

into the classroom. Grabe and Grabe (1996) state the teacher's role in incorporating excellent practices should be to guide student discovery and model active learning. The students should be collaboratively creating the knowledge. When assessing student knowledge, higher order thinking should be evident in that knowledge should be applied and process-oriented. Technology should extend thinking skills by employing applications. Instructional strategies using technology. It appears teaching and learning using technology occurs in a student-centered or constructivist classroom setting. Martin and Shulman (2006) examined the teaching practices of teachers who participated in the Essentials Course. This course promotes students being engaged in collaborative, analysis, and problem-solving activities. Along with Martin and Shulman (2006), the use of constructivist teaching methods was reported by Becker and Riel (2000) in their findings which indicated the more involved teachers: (1) have teaching philosophies compatible with constructivist learning theory; (2) teach in ways consistent with a constructivist philosophy; and (3) use computers more and in exemplary ways. A study to determine exemplary practices completed by Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, and Ross (2001) was inclusive in its findings to define exemplary practices. The study did note teacher confidence level was a common thread. All the teachers in this study had high confidence levels when using instructional technology. Staff development was provided to most of the participants. Technical support was offered at varying degrees.

33

Most teachers were able to correct technical glitches and complete system maintenance on their own. The final reoccurring theme in this study gathered through observations, applications, and interviews was availability of resources. The lack of availability of computers may have been a detriment to most of the participants. The teachers in the study were reported to be creative, innovative teachers who worked around the lack of technology through resourceful scheduling (Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, & Ross, 2001). The Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, and Ross (2001) study asked teachers to express their visions of exemplary technology practices. The information gathered from the teachers discussed integrating technology into their teaching activities not how it was utilized. The teachers in this study agreed that student-centered was the best method of incorporating technology into a lesson. Martin and Shulman (2006) reported the results of a study completed by the Education Development Center (EDC). The study included information collected about the use of technology by teachers and their attitudes toward using instructional technology. The data reported technology usage varied from district to district, school to school, and teacher to teacher. Four factors were found to have some effect on teaching practices and attitudes. The factors included school and/or district leadership, participation in quality professional development, teachers' access to technology, and pedagogical beliefs. The longitudinal study which spanned a six year period used a formative evaluative process to collect information from teachers participating in Intel Teach Essentials (ITE) at different stages of the study. The results of the surveys helped administrators and teacher

34

to construct a quality program, as well as provide insight to the challenges and benefits that affect the teachers' use of technology. The study concluded with ITE participants and non-participants being given the Instructional Practices and Classroom Uses of Technology survey via the web. The focus of the survey was to ask teachers about instructional practices, classroom use of technology, and experiences with technology-focused professional development. The intent of the survey was to determine teacher's instructional beliefs, instructional practices, access to technology, and uses of the technology. The results of the Martin and Shulman (2006) study stated ITE participants used technology more in their teaching practices than those teachers not receiving the training. Teaching practices were defined in this study as emailing other staff or administration, grading, and creating handouts. The teachers also used technology to support instructional practices by using CD-Rom, emailing parents, and presenting information to students. That is the ITE trained teachers had students working on assignments using computers outside the classroom, accessing websites, viewing or creating videos/movies, and completing or creating reports/papers (Martin & Shulman, 2006). According to Martin and Shulman (2006), the teaching style of the educator plays a role in the teacher's use of technology. If a teacher believes in a student-centered classroom, technology is more likely to be integrated into lessons. If a teacher believes in a classroom focused on the teacher, technology may not be utilized to its fullest potential.

35

Teacher's Perception of Student Achievement Since many of the standards are resting on the premise that technology will enhance student learning, the Pennsylvania Technology Inventory (PATI) which was mentioned earlier in this chapter also gathered data related to teacher perception of student achievement related to the use of technology. The PATI survey reveals 76% of teachers feel technology is positively affecting student achievement. Yet, only fourteen percent of teachers feel technology programs are definitely preparing students with the range of technology skills needed for the 21st century. Fifty percent of the teachers, however, feel technology is positively affecting student engagement to some extent (Metiri Group, 2008). A study examining electronic technologies including computers, graphing calculators, and projection devices was completed by Goos, Galbraith, Renshaw, and Geiger (2001). The researchers felt these technologies promoted new opportunities for students to communicate and analyze mathematical thinking processes. Data was collected during a three (3) year period from five (5) senior secondary mathematics classrooms. The students used computers, graphing calculators, and projection devices to support the exploration of mathematical ideas and to communicate. The data provided by the study included a narrative of the interactions of a teacher and students. The dialogue was analyzed by the researchers who concluded the teacher's actions were consistent with his beliefs concerning mathematics and the teaching of mathematics. As for student achievement, the study noted students were stimulated by the use of technology. Technology use brought about communication and the sharing of

36

knowledge. Use of technology for project work provided information for classroom discussions (Goos et al., 2001). ICT (Information and Communication Technology) - the hopes and the reality, a small scale survey conducted by the research trio of Reynolds, Treharne, and Tripp (2003) concluded more information is needed to improve the expectations and effectiveness of use of information and communications technology. This survey explored the manner in which technology was used in the classroom and found technology is used as a provider of fast and non-critical feedback, fast and accurate visual displays, tools for manipulative displays, and a method for students to work along with the teacher when completing lengthy problems. Teachers participating in the study were optimistic that technology would increase student achievement. No results were provided regarding whether or not the teacher's optimism was reflected in student achievement. According to Judson (2006), progressive educators need to incorporate technology into the classroom as a constructivist instructional tool that will promote student exploration, problem solving, and most importantly student learning. As far back as a decade ago, the National Council of Mathematics wrote "technology is essential in teaching and learning mathematics, it influences the mathematics that is taught and enhances student's learning." (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000, p. T22). This statement suggests the hardware and software mentioned in this chapter have the ability to improve student learning. When summarizing the findings, Forgasz (2006) noted teachers appeared optimistic in regard to student learning when using a computer. The teachers feel student

37

learning will be more effective. However, more data is needed before a conclusion may be drawn. Summary Technology is being written into state technology plans and national curriculum standards. The goals and standards claim technology will improve student achievement and behavior. The use of technology as instructional tools relies on human implementation to reach the established objectives. Unfortunately, teachers' perceptions need to be positive before teachers will embrace the pedagogical tools of the 21st century. Teachers' willingness to integrate technology into classroom lessons depends largely on their beliefs and enthusiasm to develop technology skills. The body of literature and studies reviewed identified physical and perceptual barriers to technology use by teachers. Those barriers are both physical and perceptual. The physical barriers are limited resources, limited professional training, and district support. Limited resources may be in the form of lack of access to computers, Internet, and/or other technology peripherals. If a teacher is to integrate technology into a classroom, he/she is in need of training in order to be able to understand and effectively use the technology. With the proper training, teachers will have the ability to understand the capabilities of the resources. Along with the training, time must be provided to the educator so to be able to better explore and become competent in the use of the technology.

38

As for the support, it must be provided at both district and school level. If district support is not provided in the form of training, time, and personnel to answer questions, a teacher may feel uncomfortable using the technology. Barriers come from within the teacher as well. Perceptual barriers will affect a teacher's use of technology. If a teacher is not comfortable with the technology, he/she will be a "servant" to the technology. If the teacher is comfortable, it will become an "extension of self' with the teacher conducting student centered lessons. In conclusion, many of the researchers agree that appropriately used technology will result in positive student progress. It can be assumed from this literature review the goal of states and curricular councils to utilize technology to increase student achievement would be attained.

39

Chapter Three Methodology Many state technology standards, goals, and objectives affirm technology will improve student progress. Regardless of the claim, the statement that "teachers are good or bad, not because they are made of meat and bones or electronic circuits, but because they apply correctly or incorrectly teaching methods that are or are not relevant to the objectives and target audience," helps one to realize the connection between the statements and actual achievement (Dillenbourg, 2008). This key statement makes clear the teacher is the connection between the student use of technology and positive student achievement. According to Patton, "researchers engaged in basic research want to understand how the world operates. They are interested in investigating a phenomenon to get at the nature of reality with regard to that phenomenon. The purpose is to understand and explain" (2002, p.215). The function of this study is to determine high school teachers' perceptions about the use of technology as an instructional tool. Determining a teacher's feelings toward implementing technology may provide critical information concerning whether the use of technology in his or her classroom will contribute to student success. Getting to the nature of reality would include the role of the teacher who plays a key part in determining when and how the instructional technology will be used by the students. If a teacher is uncomfortable using technology allowing it to be the "master" (Goos, 2005), student learning will be hindered by the teacher's lack of confidence and inability to use technology. The questions answered through conducting this study are:

40

(a) How have teacher's perceptions (attitudes) toward instructional technology changed as a result of the implementation of CFF?; (b) Has CFF changed teacher's instructional practices and in what way?; (c) What are the teacher's perceptions as to how CFF has influenced their students? The qualitative findings from this study will assist administrators and technology instructional advisors to provide the necessary support so teachers will utilize technology to its fullest potential. As stated previously, it is the hope teachers will seamlessly integrate technology into the classroom so its use will be as simple as using chalk and the blackboard. The information collected will help to define the relationship between teachers' perceptions and effective instructional practices using technology. Research Design The research design for this study was an empirical inquiry case study. The design was selected as a vehicle to investigate the contemporary issue of the influence of technology integration on teaching practices as expressed from the teachers' perspective. Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003) define a case study research as an in-depth study of a phenomenon in its natural context and from the perspective of the participants involved. The study utilized a mixed method format in that both quantitative and qualitative data was collected from the participants. Information includes teacher demographic information, observation notes, and interviews. This information helped to determine the influences of teacher's perceptions when using technology in the classroom. The type of case study research was selected as it examined six selected teachers' self-reported perceptions. These perceptions either increased or decreased the use of

41

instructional technology. Each of the teachers represented one of the five technology tiers established by the district. All six (6) teachers taught within the district during the 2008 - 2009 school year. Participants The district utilized in this study is a suburban district of 8,300 students. Permission was obtained from the superintendent of this district. A letter of agreement can be found in Appendix A. The district serves educational needs of the nine municipalities. This district is served by ten elementary schools, four middle schools, and the two high schools (West Shore School District, 2007). As of 2006, the individual personal average income was $27,918. The average household income was $51,669. Approximately fifty percent of household incomes were above $50,000. Eight percent of the households earned less than $15,000. Five percent of the households earned more than $150,000. The average value of a home was $110, 469. These averages are commensurate with the state median (SchoolMatters, 2008). Thirty-nine percent of the population of the district's 60,000 residents is between the ages of 20 - 44 years old and 26% of the population falls within the 45 - 64 year old range. School age children between the ages of 5 and 19 make up 17% of the population. Older citizens, over the age of 65, make up approximately 14% of the district's population. The median age of a district resident is 39 years old (SchoolMatters, 2008). The district consists of over 24,000 households. Of these households, 7.2% are headed by a single parent. Eighty-seven percent of adults possess a high school diploma.

42

Bachelor's degrees are held by 25.8% of the adults living in the district. These averages exceed the state averages in these areas (SchoolMatters, 2008). To provide more information regarding the make up of the population of the district, a breakdown of the ethnicity of the district's four middle schools is presented in Table 1. Table 1 Ethnicity of school district involved in the study
Racial/Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander District 93.6% 2.7% 1.7% 0.1%

Of the district's population, 15.8% is classified as economically disadvantaged. This level is substantially lower than the state average of 31% (SchoolMatters, 2008). During 2005, this district spent $4,838 for instructional purposes per student. This amount is below the state average. The district's total expenditure per student is nearly three thousand dollars below the state average (SchoolMatters, 2008). This district employs nearly 650 teaching faculty. This faculty is led by 42 administrators with each school building having or sharing a principal. In addition, the district uses the services of well over 400 support staff members. The annual budget for this district exceeds $87 million.

43

Each of the district's teachers has been issued a laptop by the district. The laptop is an essential tool when teaching, communicating, and recordkeeping. The teachers have been offered many staff development programs, which help the educators to maximize the use of the laptop. Also, Technology Instructional Advisors will sit with the teacher to offer individual assistance upon request (Machemer, J., personal communication, October 27, 2008). As of the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year, 115 teachers have been trained or are being trained, at both high schools as part of the Classroom for the Future program. The CFF grant provides training and support for those teachers participating in the initiative. Each of the two high schools has a CFF coach on staff. The coach is responsible for providing support to the teachers. The CFF teachers range in experience from one to thirty-five years of teaching experience. These educators teach English, mathematics, social studies, and science. The teachers have assessed their own technological ability. The teachers' technological levels range from one (lowest) to five (highest) (Machemer J., personal communication, October 27, 2008). This study used six (6) high school teachers currently employed by a district located in south central Pennsylvania as its subjects. Data collection included demographic information, observations of teachers, and interviews. Each of the six teachers was classified according to self reported tier levels. The levels were specified by the district. Teachers represented Tier III through Tier V since teachers on Tiers I and II

44

were not receiving or have not received the CFF training. A description of the levels is found in Table 2. Table 2 Technology Level Tiers

Level Level I Awareness Basic Use

Description The teacher primarily utilizes technology for professional productivity. For example, the teacher uses the computer to take attendance, use e-mail, prepare lesson plans, enter grades, and maintain a webpage. Occasional student technology integration is present in the classroom.

Level II Skill Building Basic Integration

The teacher utilizes technology for professional productivity and curricular enhancement in his/her teaching. The teacher primarily uses technology in the classroom. The teacher's webpage includes curricular content and is up to date. The teacher assigns research, report writing, slideshow presentations, and other various basic tasks to his/her students.

Level III Student Integration Intermediate Integration

The teacher utilizes technology for professional productivity, curricular enhancement, and uses digital age collaboration such as videoconferencing. The teacher plans and designs learning activities that include spreadsheets, slideshow presentations, movie making, etc. Students have the freedom to create advanced multimedia presentations and have more programs available to them that integrate simultaneously.

Level IV Infusion Advanced Integration

The teacher utilizes technology for professional productivity and curricular enhancement, uses digital-age collaboration tools, and integrates current 21st century technology practices in the classroom. The teacher models digital citizenship and the appropriate uses of social networking sites. Students use advanced tools such as blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other Web 2.0 tools that promote higher-level thinking, creativity, and collaboration.

45

Level V Mentor Global Integration

The teacher uses technology for professional productivity and curricular enhancement, uses digital-age collaboration tools, integrates current 21st century technology practices in the classroom, and creates a global learning community within his/her classroom. The teacher and his/her students are accessing files and assignments from locations other than school. The teacher and his/her students collaborate on projects with students or subject-area authorities around the globe. The teacher continuously promotes, explores, and demonstrates effective use of digital tools and resources while offering assistance to colleagues and students.

Note: These levels are defined by West Shore School District Technology Department (2008).

Participants in the study were selected from a pool of teachers were teaching at one of the two high schools in the district during the 2008 - 2009 school year and have been trained as part of the CFF. Names and Technology Integration levels were collected from the building administrators. The Technology Integration levels were self reported by the teachers. Teachers with CFF training indicated their technology levels were on levels three (3) through five (5). Since teachers participating in the CFF initiative have assessed and reported their abilities to be on levels three or higher, teachers who have reported their technologies skills on levels one and two were not asked to participate in this study. After selecting three (3) teachers from each level, a letter requesting participation was sent to each teacher (Appendix B). Upon receiving confirmation from those teachers interested in participating in the study, the final six teachers were selected according to the technology level. Two (2) teachers from each level were selected to participate in the actual study. The others were to be used if the selected teacher at that level would opt to withdraw from the study. No teacher opted out of the study. Table 3

46

provides the information about the participants selected through this process and agreed to participate in this study. The six (6) teachers varied in years of experience from 5.5 to 23 years. Table 3 Overview of Participants
Number Years of Teacher Teaching Experience Years of Subject Technology Taught Use Per Class Physics, Chemistry, AA 12 12 Science Physical Science AP Literature 12, BB 20 20 English American Literature 11 AP Chemistry, CC 5 5 Science Inorganic Chemistry II DD 6 5.5 Mathematics Geometry English III EE 7 5 English Levels 1, 2, 3 English III, Level 1, AP Language & 21 - 2 5 FF 16 15 English Composition, Composition & Communication V students IV students V students 26-30 III students 21 - 2 5 III students 15-20 IV students 26-30 21 - 2 5 Taught Tier Students Courses Technology of

Currently, the researcher is a middle school principal with 24 years in education. She has served as a classroom teacher, school counselor, and assistant principal at the high school and middle school levels.

47

Procedure The final selection of participants consisted of choosing representation from the top three (3) technology tiers as established by the district. All participating teachers were teaching within the district during the 2008 - 2009 school year. After the selecting two teachers from each of the Technology Tiers III, IV, and V of teacher participants, a meeting was held to inform all participants about the study. During the meeting the study was explained and all of the participants' questions were addressed. At this meeting if a teacher opted withdraw from the study he/she could do so. No participants opted to withdraw from the study. At the conclusion of the initial meeting, each teacher was provided with a copy of the demographic survey and the Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey (Appendix C) asked to complete it. The survey which provided information about a teacher's teaching background, technology use, and technology integration beliefs was collected. Next the researcher contacted individual participants to arrange times to meet and conduct a personal interview. The interviews were audio taped answering a scripted set of questions (Appendix D). The interviews were later transcribed. All interviews were completed within six weeks of the initial meeting After the initial interview was completed, a time and date were established to conduct a classroom observations the each teacher. Two observations were completed for each participating teacher over a two week period. Each observation was 80 minutes in length. The Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric was utilized during the observations (Appendix E). Observations notes were taken by the observer so to

48

document student reactions and behavior as well as the manner in which technology was employed in the class. Also documented was the type of technology used and the length of time technology was utilized and by whom. Within one week after the completion of both observations of a teacher, the data collected from the observation was reviewed with the teacher. During this postobservation conference the teacher was asked to reflect upon the information collected during the observations. The information gathered during the follow-up interview was documented and later analyzed for common threads and themes. The process of conducting an interview, two observations, and a follow-up interview was repeated for each of the six participants. Schedule of Interviews and Audio-Taping of Interviews and Classroom Observations. Formal Interviews. The objective of this study was to conduct two (2) one-onone interviews with each participating teacher during the months of February through May. The observations were conducted after being granted permission by the school district and the teacher. The teacher interviews was based upon a series of questions (Appendix E) that acted as a guide for the conversation between the interviewee and interviewer. The questions were intended to elicit an open, candid discussion regarding the teacher's attitude toward technology. The interview session was audio taped in order for the researcher to be able to transcribe and carefully interpret data. The first interview with each teacher was used to obtain initial reactions to the use of instructional

49

technology. The second was after the two classroom observations had been completed. The data collected from the observation served as the basis for the interview. The interviews were audio-taped for the sole purpose of careful data collection and allowed the researcher to transcribe the conversation accordingly. During the interviews, the researcher used a notebook. The use of a notebook allowed for the researcher to record the subject's body language, gestures, and other reactions that may occur during the interviews. The notations regarding body language assisted in determining the tone of the conversation. Observations. During the course of this study, two classroom observations were conducted with each research participant. Each observation lasted approximately eighty (80) minutes and was completed within a two-week period. Instrumentation. Data was collected from several sources during this study. These sources consisted of a demographics survey, Technology Beliefs and Competencies Survey, interview questions, and a classroom observation rubric. Demographic Survey and Technology Beliefs and Competencies Survey. Demographic information was collected in the form of a survey. The questions contained in the first part of the survey were created by the researcher in order to collect information specific to this study. Sections two through four utilize items from the Technology Beliefs and Competencies Survey for practicing teachers which was developed as part of the

50

Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology (PT3) grant. This survey was completed prior to the interview and observation. (Appendix C) Validation for the Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey was collected as part of the PT3 grant. Educational technology faculty examined the survey to determine the objectives of the survey were being met and items were clearly stated. This helped to determine content validity for this instrument. The Likert-style items were ranked on a four point scale. For Section II - Technology Skills, the teachers answered questions using a ranking of "I Can't Do This" to "I Can Teach Other How to Do This" (Brinkerhoff et al. 2002). Cronbach Alpha reliability for Section II was 0.95. All 32 items from the Technology Skills were used as part of this current study. The third section from the Technology Beliefs and Competencies Survey entitled Technology Beliefs Cronbach Alpha reliability for Section II was 0.85. This section has 11 Likert-style items which addressed classroom instruction and technology integration. Teachers used to four point scale to answer questions using "Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree and Strongly Agree" (Brinkerhoff et al., 2002). Items 47 to 52 and items 55 through 58 were used as part of this study Technology Integration was focus of the fourth and final section. Again, a four point Likert-scale was used with teachers strongly disagreeing to strongly agreeing with the statement. Items 59 -69 were used as part of this study. The mean and standard deviation was provided for each item. Thirty-seven teachers participated in the study used to validate this survey. The ISTE standards were

51

used to help develop the items contained in the Technology Beliefs and Competencies Survey (Brinkerhoff et al., 2002). Interview Questions. The interview questions were developed from several sources. Many of the questions were taken from other technology surveys. One such source was the Center for Applied Research in Educational Technology (CARET). CARET not only provided questions but added data to support the reason to include the question. Other sources of questions were Pennsylvania Technology Inventory (PATI) and the Teachers' Attitudes Toward Computers Questionnaire developed by Knezek and Christensen (1996)). The interview questions can be found in Appendix D. Observation Rubric. The Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric was employed as the observation tool to capture data during the observation. This tool assisted in evaluating technology integration not to evaluate the quality of integration. This tool was obtained from ISTE (Appendix E). The rubric obtained from ISTE was developed at Arizona State University West (ASUW) as part of the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grant. This tool allowed evaluators from ISTE to document how technology integration occurred in ASUW classrooms as well as kindergarten through grade twelve (12) classrooms (International Society for Technology in Education, 2008). The PT3 grant is a federal program which provides money to schools, colleges and universities across the country to assist in addressing educators' challenges of using technology (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).

52

Data Analysis Data was collected from the demographic survey, Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey, the interview questions, and observation rubric. The demographic survey was provided information about each teacher to determine if age, years of experience, or curricular area play a role in an educator's perceptions toward using technology as an instructional tool. The Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey provided information related to the each teacher's beliefs regarding technology integrations and technology abilities. The interview questions provided a more personal and in-depth understanding of the teachers' attitudes toward the use of technology within the classroom. The teacher was given the opportunity to express the positives and negatives about integrating technology into his/her teaching practices. Through the interview process, common threads were developed when all interview responses were compared. After transcribing the interviews and analyzing the information, patterns, themes and content were evident. When analyzing the information, inductive analysis was used. According to Patton (2002), this allows for easier discovery of patterns, and themes. The observation rubric was used to collect data from the observation. The observation provided the context of technology use as seen in real time. Additionally, information as to the actual use of instructional technology in the classroom is provided. This tool provided data as to the commonalities among teaching practices as well as the variances in use of instructional technology. Additionally classroom observations

53

allowed the observer to see first hand how the technology is being used along with the problems which were encountered in its use.

54

Chapter Four Discussions and Findings The data and information collected as part of this study was reviewed and analyzed. The findings will be reported in three sections and summary of the chapter at its conclusion. The first section is devoted to providing background information collected as part of the study. This information is provided to offer a better understanding of the study and its findings. The second section provides a summary of the case studies completed for each participant. Each case study provides information collected through surveys, interviews, and observations about each participant. The third section is devoted to the three (3) research questions. Data specific to each research question is reported in this section. The chapter is summarized in the conclusion section. Demographic Survey and Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey The first section of the survey, entitled "Demographic Information" sought information from the teachers regarding courses taught, years of teaching experience, and technology tier level. Other information obtained from the completed survey included hardware and software used as well as how often technology is used by both the teacher and students. According to several sources, teacher ability and confidence levels affect a teacher's use of technology (Goos, 2005; Forgasz, 2006). Also, according to Ertmer (1999) and Groff and Mousza (2008), the availability of programs and software affects

55

teachers' use of technology. The information provided on this survey was reviewed and analyzed. Teachers were asked to complete the Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey so information related to these topics could be gathered and analyzed. As part of the Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey, teachers were asked the types of technology being used in their respective classrooms and to self-rate their abilities associated with the use of technology. Each participant reported mixed levels of confidence when using many different programs during lessons, and when completing managerial tasks. Programs such as Inspiration, Google Docs, Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, Microsoft PowerPoint, EasyTeach, Wordle, Moodle, and iMovie were essential parts of classroom instruction. Web-based research was also identified as an essential part of classroom instruction. Hardware such as the polyvision board, teacher laptops, student laptops, digital cameras, video cameras, I-pods, and calculators were identified as being used as instructional tools. All six teachers stated they utilize their teacher webpage as a classroom resource. The page was utilized to post assignments, host online discussions, list class notes, and provide links to relevant materials presented during class. Teachers did report daily use of technology to complete managerial responsibilities of their jobs. On a daily basis, the teachers record grades and submit student attendance via an Internet program and correspond with peers, administrators, and parents by using email. All teachers reported the appropriate technological skill level to teach others the techniques needed to send, receive, open, and read email. Along with the basic skills of emailing, the six indicated on the survey they could tutor others to use

56

advanced features of email including sending attachments, using an address book, and distribution list. All six teachers felt they can teach others how to use word processors to format text and check spelling, and grammar. All participants reported they felt competent to teach other advanced features of word processing. The participants indicated they could teach others how to use an electronic gradebook. Sections two through four of the Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey compiled data related to teachers' perceptions regarding their abilities when using technology. Also, these sections collected information about the participants' feelings about the use of technology in the classroom. In analyzing the teachers' perceptions on technology skills and competencies, the teachers' self-rating in the area of Basic Operations found on the Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey, all the teachers reported they were competent to complete the basic operations to "create, save, copy and delete files; move files onto hard disks; create folders and move files between folders; print documents; cut, paste, and copy information within and between documents". All teachers reported they could instruct others in these basic skills." Use of productivity software such as spreadsheets and presentation software found mixed levels of confidence among the teachers. Teachers AA and CC (science teachers) and Teacher DD (mathematics teacher) indicated they had the skills to teach others how to use spreadsheets. When conducting the interviews, Teachers AA and CC (science teachers) and Teacher DD (mathematics teacher) stated they use spreadsheets during lessons and have students use them as well. Conversely, Teachers BB, EE, and

57

FF, who are English teachers, did not indicate the use of such programs within their classrooms. Another area, in which teachers self-rated themselves, was Electronic References. Five (5) out of the six (6) participants felt confident using search tools to perform keyword/subject searches in an electronic database. Those teachers who used electronic references were Teachers AA (science teacher), BB (English teacher), DD (mathematics teacher), EE (English teacher), and FF (English teacher). Teacher CC (science teacher) was unfamiliar with electronic references because she does not have her students use websites to complete assignments that require such research. In another self-rating category, teachers responded to competency in the area of the World Wide Web. All six (6) educators felt they could teach others the skills required to complete a search of the World Wide Web, as well as the utilization of web browsers. Teacher CC, who teaches AP Chemistry noted she could use more advanced features of the World Wide Web such as creating, organizing, and using bookmarks, opening multiple windows, and using the reload/refresh feature. Classroom Observations Data regarding the observations was collected using the Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric. All the observations were conducted in a classroom setting. Each of the twelve observations was eighty minutes in length. During the twelve observations, technology was used approximately two-thirds of the time. The amount of time a teacher employed technology varied from subject to subject and teacher to teacher. During a total of five (5) observations or when broken down two (2) of the observations

58

of Teacher AA (science teacher), two (2) of the observations of Teacher BB (English teacher), and one (1) of the observations of Teacher DD (mathematics teacher), technology was deemed an essential part of the learning experience as students or teachers used technology 80 to 100 percent of the class period. This determination was made according to the Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric used during the observations. During these lessons, the students were completing projects which required Internet access, the use of digital video and/or cameras, and/or the use of simulation programs. During the seven (7) other lessons, teachers CC (science teacher), DD (mathematics teacher), EE (English teacher), and FF (English teacher) utilized technology instructionally. The teachers projected images, played music, and showed video clips from the Internet. Other methods of using technology during lessons included having students use the interactive polyvision board to complete math problems, correct grammar, and indicate responses to posed questions. During the observation of Teacher AA (science teacher) his students demonstrated their skill of finding information by using electronic references related to a specific topic. The information was use to build a webpage. Case Studies of Participants The case studies represent an empirical inquiry case study where data from the demographic survey, Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey, the interview questions, and observation rubric were extrapolated and summarized/synthesized.

59

Case study - Teacher AA. Teacher AA is a male teacher who has taught in the district for 12 years. During this time, he felt comfortable using technology to teach his Physics, Chemistry, and Physical Science courses. He rated himself as a Tier IV teacher according to the district's technology tier continuum. During the interview, when asked to rate himself on a scale of one (not confident) to ten (most confident), he ranked himself as an eight or nine. He was confident, clear, and concise with his responses to the interview questions. An educator's pedagogical beliefs specifically regarding instruction, classroom environment, and consideration of students would most likely be the key influences on the teacher's classroom. To gather more information regarding Teacher AA's pedagogical beliefs, questions were posed about the skills the teacher believes are cogent to maintaining an educationally conducive classroom. Teacher AA named two skills needed for success in the classroom. The skills were building a rapport with the students and having classroom management. The issue of classroom management will be addressed later in this case study. Information presented as part of the Chapter 2 literature review contends teacher access to technology is a contributing factor to a teacher's use of technology. Teacher AA stated he has access to a laptop, polyvision board, and a laptop cart, housing a classroom set of student laptops. He used his district-issued laptop on a daily basis to complete logistical responsibilities which include: taking attendance; communicating with administration, teachers, parents, and students; and posting grades using

60

PowerSchool. When teaching his classes he often used PowerPoint, EMField, Pasco DataStudio, and PhotoBooth software programs. Teacher AA explained his many uses of the polyvision board, such as to show animated representations different of abstract concepts,video segments of experiments and chemical reactions which would prove dangerous to demonstrate in an uncontrolled^ classroom setting. He did confess that his use of the polyvision board 'is not developed to the fullest capacity." His use of the board was mostly as a projection screen. The board is designed to be interactive with sensitive "touch" links which can in some cases open other areas of the software program, or serve as hotlinks to websites. According to the responses provided by Teacher AA on the Technology Belief and Competency Survey, when Teacher AA d required students to use technology, they used the hardware and software less than one (1) time per month. Students were most often assigned to use spreadsheets to complete classroom assignments. Teacher AA also had his students use web-based, electronic references to locate facts and other data. This was noted during the first observation of Teacher AA. According to Classrooms For the Future best practices, when teachers are conducting lessons using technology, the classroom environment should feature studentcentered learning experiences. Teacher AA was asked to describe where his classroom was on the continuum from student-centered to teacher-centered. He responded that his style of teaching was more toward the teacher-centered end of the continuum. The reasoning for his choice was his belief that the subjects which he taught best leant themselves to the more didactic presentations modes. He further elaborated that his

61

usage of technology was different for students' varying ability levels as well as the science course itself. Teacher AA contended the lower level, less academic courses allow for more exploration to be completed by the students. His assertion thus allowed him to have more student-centered activities in his Physical Science and Chemistry classes. His approach is more teacher-centered for his higher level class such as Physics. Teacher AA noted "these concepts must be correctly understood and demonstrated by the student. Failure to understand the concepts may lead to difficulty in understanding theories present later in the course." His feeling was therefore that students cannot be left to explore the concepts on their own. This feeling was certainly in direct opposition to a more constructivist approach to science education. This was also questionable with regard to viewing Chemistry as a lower level subject. Teacher AA noted his personal comfort level and students' needs were contributing factors in his selection of instructional methods. He contended also that the level of the course was a contributing factor in the selection of instructional methods. He noted during his interview that he continues to work out the technological glitches with both the hardware and software. Until he feels comfortable with the technology, he made the decision to not allow the students to use it during a lesson. Teacher AA cited his is-working through the glitches of Moodle as an example. Since support is another factor which contributes to a teacher's decision to use technology, each participant was questioned about the technology support structure. When asked from where or whom-did Teacher AA learn about the uses of technology, Teacher AA reported that he has learned much more about technology on the job or

62

through the courses he completed as part of his master's program. Summer academies, the District's staff development initiative, along with the assistance provided by the District's Instructional Advisors are other ways Teacher AA has learned about technology and its uses. The third research question was asked to obtain information about student achievement. He mentioned that one can obtain a lot of student achievement data when using technology, but he could not provide any examples of data collected to determine students attaining objectives. The information he did gathered had more to do with student's completion of assignments. Teacher AA has observed an increase in student participation with the use of on-line forums such as GoogleDocs. Through the use of on-line forums all the students have the opportunity to participate. He reported that in his estimation, students are less intimidated to post comments and assignments online. Teacher AA stated it was his belief that feedback could be provided more quickly by the teacher. Furthermore, he provided information that his collection of data was obtained via the use of technology. Web assignment log-in data provided information about the student's diligence when completing an assignment in relation to the time spent on the assignment. Another claim made by officials involved with the CFF program was that students would be more engaged with technology in learning. Teacher AA connected classroom management and student engagement while using technology, but had not yet clarified the relationship for himself. He stated that classroom management was a must when conducting a classroom yet he felt "students are more inclined to interact appropriately" when using technology. When using

63

technology, students' behavior must be monitored but felt, "if students want to get into trouble, they will." During the observations, information was gathered to support Teacher AA's responses to the interview questions. Teacher AA was observed on two (2) separate occasions for 80 minutes in length. Teacher AA was observed teaching a freshman Chemistry class. During the observation, technology was used almost 83 percent of the time. The teacher began the lesson with an introduction and expectations of the lesson. Students were instructed to write a journal entry about their favorite energy source. After the journal assignment each student obtained a laptop from the cart and was expected to begin working on the construction of their webpages. The students were observed locating information from on-line sources and Teacher AA's website. As the students were completing the assignment, the teacher fixed a faulty link. Students needed to access this link found on the teacher's website to be able to create their webpage. While Teacher AA was focused on fixing the link he was not attending to student behavior. During the repair, there was minimal interaction between the teacher and students. Students were observed engaging in off-task behaviors such as throwing a pencil, inappropriate touching, and conversations not related to the course or assignment. When Teacher AA returned his focus on the students following the repair, he removed one (1) student from the class. He walked around the classroom determining student progress. His summarizing activity was to determine if more time was needed to complete the project.

64

Overall, the use of technology during the first observation "clearly enhanced the lesson content; other approaches would not have been as effective." This determination was made in accordance with the Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric. The instructor demonstrated "more than adequate technical proficiency and could troubleshoot technology problems as was demonstrated when Teacher AA fixed the faulty link. The students had no difficulty with the basic lesson activities and were able to resolve other technical issues on their own. The second observation was conducted during a Physics class. Teacher AA provided a brief overview of the expectations of the lesson before students obtained a laptop from the cart. For the first 50 minutes of the class, Teacher AA provided a teacher-centered lecture consisting of instruction and questioning. He used the polyvision board to project a drawing to explain magnets and electromagnets. The students took notes as he provided verbal and visual explanations. To aid student understanding, Teacher AA wrote or drew notes on the board for view. After receiving the instruction from Teacher AA, the students were to complete interactive simulations on the computers. These were assigned to reinforce the instruction. The class concluded with Teacher AA giving a web-based assignment which could be located by accessing this teacher's webpage. Although technology was used during the entire lesson, student interaction with technology was for less than 25 percent of the block. The teacher used the polyvison board to provide instruction. It was noted that assessment during the lesson was minimal and limited to questions posed by the teacher. This limited assessment of student

65

progress did not appear to alter the lesson or the use of technology to reinforce the concepts. The teacher made reference to having the link to interactive simulations which would provide reinforcement for student learning. Some of the responses provided by Teacher AA were not supported by his behavior during the observations. He noted classroom management was a critical element when conducting a classroom. His lack of monitoring student behavior during the first observation indicated he did not effectively utilize classroom management techniques. Although he stated he was proficient when using technology, he attended to the non-functioning link for approximately 35 minutes of the class. The initial responses to the questions provided by Teacher AA appeared to be contradictory to his actions. First, he did not effectively monitor student behavior as they used technology. The observations did not support his contention that technology improved student behavior. Finally, Teacher AA claimed proficiency when using technology, yet spent critical instructional time making corrections to technology. Case study - Teacher BB. This female English teacher of 20 years was referred to as a "dinosaur" by CFF instructors during the initial CFF training because of her stated beliefs regarding technology. This nickname could explain her disdain for CFF and its courses which she described as a "waste of time." Ironically, she was confident in her ability to learn and use technology. Teacher BB was quite candid in her responses during the interview. Two points became evident during the interview of Teacher BB. Her concern was centered around how technology was to be used and the lack of its availability. Her

66

belief was technology is an instructional tool used to support student learning. The purpose of technology, in her estimation was not to entertain students. She felt many teachers use technology to entertain the students and stated, "this is a problem." Teacher BB continued to explain her philosophy of the use of educational technology by answering the question solely about skills needed to teach. Teacher BB listed the cogent abilities as problem-solving, multi-tasking, and verbalizing in an effective and clear manner. A teacher must be "even keeled." She did not include technology skills as a skill needed to teach. She stated technology can not do the job of a teacher, nor should teachers expect it to do their job. Teacher BB explained her dislike for the Classrooms For the Future program. She contended CFF did not afford her the hands on opportunities to learn the technology and its uses. She felt she did not learn anything from the CFF courses that she did not already know or had learned from staff development. Teacher BB was asked about the support she received in regard to technology. Her appreciation of the support provided by the CFF coaches was evident. Teacher BB contended she learned most about the uses of technology during staff development opportunities and from assistance provided by the Instructional Advisors. She noted she has been provided with ample time to learn the different hardware and software. When Teacher BB had malfunctioning technology, she called the district's "Help Desk." This support service provided a loaner laptop with which she could continue to complete the responsibilities of her job. She noted she "could not imagine not having access to her laptop and other technology." She contended it helped her to perform the tasks of her job along with teaching her students.

67

She employed technology to teach Advanced Placement Literature 12 and American Literature 11. Teacher BB described her teaching style as a combination of teacher-centered and student-centered. She selected activities which met the needs of the students, as well as helped her to teach the concepts. She explained she likes to provide activities which allow the students to explore and develop their ideas. Teacher BB provided an example of this teacher philosophy while using technology. Prior to her class going on a field trip to the Carlisle War College, Teacher BB connected to the internet and was able to take the students on a virtual tour. This preview allowed the students to gain an understanding of the sights which would be seen on the trip. During the actual trip, Teacher BB observed the students asking more indepth questions about the articles and strategies associated with battles, and less esoteric, knowledge based questions. She explained another assignment that enabled the students to use technology and which promoted student creativity. The project assigned required the students to complete a "Teenager Declaration of Independence." This project had students using cameras, laptops, and iMovie software. The students took full responsibility for their learning. More information about this assignment will be provided as it was viewed during the two observation of Teacher BB. These student-centered projects strayed from the traditional paper and pencil test and written reports. The students were able to demonstrate an understanding of the original Declaration of Independence and its meaning by creating their own scripts which included creating video clips.

68

Teacher BB enjoyed using technology and attempted to incorporate technology whenever it was available. Unfortunately, technology hardware was not available on a consistent basis due to the laptop cart being shared by other teachers in the department. She did manage to integrate one project per unit using technology. As mentioned previously, the lack of availability of technology was a point of contention for Teacher BB. The use of technology to assess student learning was difficult since access to the technology was not always available. She had to adapt and assess student learning using other methods. She expressed her dismay with not being able to use technology to better analyze student progress. She reported missing the opportunity to seize "teachable moments" because technology was not readily accessible. The Tier III teacher reported during the interview process that student achievement and behavior depended on the level of the students. In her opinion, lower level students liked to use technology, but it is more difficult for this group of low achieving students. She felt the higher levels were capable of completing more advanced projects. She made mention of this philosophy during the follow-up interview. She explained she would not change the assignment, but might have to make adjustments due to the students' ability levels when making this assignment to students of differing abilities. This consideration appeared to be less prejudicial than the aforementioned comments. The Declaration of Independence project was completed by her AP students. Teacher BB was proud of her students' use of technology, and the finished projects presented by the students.

69

She felt the students showed a deep understanding of the document our forefathers' wrote well over 200 years ago. The first observation consisted of the student using video cameras, still cameras, iMovie software, and other programs. The students were permitted to move freely in the high school in order to capture the essence of their feeling of independence. As the student captured the meaning of their own declaration, it was obvious that the students relished the opportunity to take charge of their own learning. During the second observation, students presented their projects. Teacher BB assessed each project using a rubric that was provided to the students when the assignment was given. Filming and editing were 2 categories assessed on the rubric. This was truly a student-centered activity. Technology was used by the student 100 percent of the block during the first observation. Teacher BB had "adequate proficiency to teach the lesson" according to the Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric. The students were able to use the technology with no difficulty. Although different technology was used for the second observation, it was still an essential element for the lesson and was essential to the content. Technology was used for more than 75 percent of the lesson. Teacher BB had the students engaged in using technology to learn the standards. The activity supported the English teacher's philosophy of technology as a teaching tool. It did not replace her as the teacher but was an essential part in conducting the lessons. The students did take responsibility for their own learning.

70

Case study - Teacher CC. In her fifth year of teaching science, Teacher CC rated herself as a Tier III teacher according to the district's technology scale. Over her teaching career, Teacher CC reported she was confident when using instructional technology. She has increased her use of instructional technology. This increase is partly due to the availability of hardware through the CFF a grant. She had access to a laptop, polyvision board, and a class set of student laptops. She enjoyed providing hands on activities to the students. She employed software programs such as Inspiration, Web Research, Googledocs, and Excel. This teacher has taught her students to analyze data via the use of these software programs. She considered herself to be more of a teacher-centered educator. She explained she is not yet comfortable with the constructivist approach to engaging students in her classroom. As she gains more teaching experience, her goal is to evolve into a more student-centered approach toward instruction. Teacher CC gained much of her knowledge regarding technology when she was employed in the private business sector. She brought her business knowledge of technology into the classroom. She confessed an appreciation for self-directed acclimation regarding the use technology. By learning to use the technology on her own, Teacher CC gained what she felt to be a more complete understanding of the technology and its uses. When Teacher CC did have difficulty with technology, she sought assistance from a fellow teacher in her building. She consulted the District's Instructional Advisor when she was "stressed" about technology and had difficulty that she could not resolve by herself or with the assistance of a peer. This was the case when Teacher CC was learning the software Googledocs.

71

She explained she was a member of the District's Cadre. The Cadre is a group of teachers specifically trained to know the capabilities of technology. This training goes beyond the typical staff development offerings. Being a member of the Cadre allowed her to undergo intensive training about technology and its uses. Teacher CC recommended that all teachers be given the Cadre training opportunity. Additionally, Teacher CC has relied on a precious resource to further acclimate to technology - her students. She commented that her students were faster than she was when using the hardware and software programs. This science teacher has learned many technological short cuts from the students. Although, not easily frustrated when using technology, frustration did occur when technology was not working properly. She has graciously accepted their help when students have come to her rescue and resolved the issues. In comparison to the other teachers participating in this study, Teacher CC provided the most accurate information regarding the use of technology to analyze student achievement. She reported not noticing a big gain in student achievement, but felt that the student interest level was higher when technology was utilized. She commented students have improved their ability to problem solve with the technology. An activity used by Teacher CC to improve problem solving skills is the analysis of student errors. When the students answered the question while the questions were on the polyvision board, Teacher CC was able to gather the data and post the correct and incorrect responses. She would then help the class analyze the data to visually determine where the errors were occurring. The ability for student to analyze data for correctness was another indication that students showed an increased ability in problem solving.

72

Another method used to gain information regarding student understanding was explained during the interview. This teacher liked to employ a drop box style of questions projected on the interactive board as her technological "Ticket Out the Door." She gathered statistics to determine who was recording the correct answers. This information helped to conclude if content needed to be re-taught. Teacher CC appeared to be the most statistically minded participant as she provided the most information regarding her use of technology to gather data related to student understanding and the assessment of student progress. When discussing student engagement, she acknowledged technology presents a new set of classroom management challenges. As the classroom teacher, she realized she must constantly monitor student work and behavior when technology was being used. To conclude the initial interview, Teacher CC commented she was still looking for new ways to use technology to improve student learning. She does not want the students to become bored when using technology. An area on which she was focused was to increase student collaboration with the use of technology. During the first observation, technology was used less than 25 percent of the 80 minute block. Teacher CC presented class notes to the students. The students copied the information on to worksheets. The teacher employed different color fonts to identify various key issues. Fifty (50) minutes into the observation, the teacher assigned problems for students to complete at their seats. The students were able to use calculators to complete the problems. At the end of the lesson, a summarizing activity was utilized. A student from each group went to the board to "drag" an answer to the correct statement on the polyvision board. During the time

73

technology was utilized, it was used either as an instructional tool, or to assess student understanding of the concept being taught during the lesson. During the second observation, the class began with a five (5) minute review of the information the students had placed on Googledocs. This activity was led by the teacher. The students were asked to obtain a laptop from the cart. Students logged in to the specified website. Each student recorded their answers to the questions and returned the laptop back to the cart. Teacher CC used the EasyTeach software to present the questions and collect the student responses. The teacher later used the information to assess student understanding. The remaining sixty (60) minutes was spent reviewing equations. The teacher directed the review and used the chalkboard to present information. No technology was used during this review. Overall, the use of technology "clearly enhanced the lesson content; other approaches would not have been as effective." This was according to the Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric. The instructor demonstrated "more than adequate technical proficiency and could troubleshoot technology problems. The students had no difficulty with the basic lesson activities and were able to resolve other technical issues on their own. During the follow up interview, Teacher CC noted she would like to assimilate technology into more real-life experiences related to her curricular area. During the second observation, she felt using the Easy Teach program was appropriate. Teacher CC was realistic when she responded to interview questions. She stated she was still learning about technology. She enjoyed learning the uses of technology and

74

would be able to provide her students with better learning opportunities by using technology. Case study - Teacher DD. Teacher DD is a female teacher whose career has spanned^* almost six years. This mathematics teacher has used education technology for five (5) of those years and has felt comfortable using technology to teach her Geometry classes. As a Tier V teacher according to the district's Technology Tier descriptions, she has her students using technology to assist in learning mathematic concepts several times a week. Teacher DD used technology to complete managerial/clerical tasks such as developing lesson plans, taking student attendance, and corresponding through email. When asked if her classroom was more teacher-centered or student-centered, she replied "teacher-centered." She explained her response was because mathematics is difficult. Concepts must be taught and understood correctly. She provided the students of the lower level course more hands-on activities to learn the concepts, which may or may not include the use of technology. When asked what skills were needed to teach, Teacher DD was the only participant responding with an answer which included skills relating to the use of technology. She felt one should understand the capabilities of technology so that it can be used more effectively in the classroom. An example of Teacher DD understanding of the uses of technology was provided during the interview. Teacher DD explained she was able to provide notes for the students who were absent or have this stipulated as part of the students' Individual

75

Education Plan (IEP). These notes were provided by either printing from the polyvision board or by posting on line. The technologically savvy teacher posted videos of herself on-line actually teaching a difficult concept. By posting the instructional video on her website, students could access the video to review how the concepts were taught in class. The skill of "honesty" was listed by Teacher DD as being important in conducting a classroom. Teacher DD related a story of an incident which occurred about the first month after the installation of the polyvision board. She admitted to her students that she knew little about the board, and they would learn to use the board together. Despite Teacher DD feeling as though it was an extremely long month, she and the students learned to use the board together, and the pressure of bearing this burden alone was transformed into a teachable moment. At this point Teacher DD indicated one also needed the ability to laugh at oneself. During this month of learning, she reported the class laughed a lot about the miscues when using the board. Teacher DD provided technology support to many of her colleagues. She had indicated that she wanted the position of the CFF coach; however, she was not named to the position. She expressed her dismay about not getting the job. She taught herself many of the technology skills because she knew what she needed for her classroom. She did take the summer staff development course to increase her knowledge regarding technology. She has used the district's Help Desk and tech support staff when her technology was not functioning properly. Teacher DD had little information to offer about the increase in student achievement. She did not indicate during the interview that she collected data with the use of technology. She

76

provided examples of students having to use technology to complete projects that would be assessed in terms of their understanding of mathematics concepts. Teacher DD used projects to assess student understanding as an alternative to a paper final exam. Use of the final exam project allowed for students to show applications of mathematics concepts. She allowed students the option of choosing whether or not to use technology. She responded some students were more comfortable completing a project using the traditional materials, while others excel using technology. She noted that college prep students usually opted to use technology, while the lower level math students chose hands on projects. One of the better student projects submitted was a structure built out of balsa wood. She cautioned in the use of technology to complete projects as some students use all the bells and whistles and missed the appropriate application of the concepts. During the first observation, a Jeopardy style review game was conducted. Teacher DD directed the game. The questions were projected on the board. The students provided the answers. When an explanation was needed to assist in student understanding, the teacher provided the explanation. She drew shapes or solved problems on the board while the class observed. Technology was used 100 percent of the time. The technology was controlled by the teacher for the majority of the 80 minute block. This teacher-centered lesson afforded the students minimal interaction with the technology. During the second observation, the activity allowed for student exploration utilizing technology. The teacher used the laptop's camera to project her demonstration of cutting shapes. The shapes were used to solve problems of area. The demonstration

77

took approximately 15 minutes. The remainder of the block was used to allow the students to solve the different problems about the area of a shape. Teacher DD felt teachers go astray when they expect technology to do their job. She commented "technology will not make a teacher better." She continued by saying in her class she allowed students to use calculators. Her view was "the calculator is a tool, not the answer." She felt buying more laptops was not the answer and technology should not become a "crutch" for teachers to use as their substitute. A final comment provided by Teacher DD was "21st century learning is not about technology, it is about integration." Case study - Teacher EE. Teacher EE is a female teacher who had taught for seven years, using technology for five of those years. She felt comfortable using instructional technology to teach her English III, Level 1, 2, and 3 classes. She had identified herself as a Tier IV teacher according to the district's technology tiers. She conducted at least one lesson per week which allowed the students to use technology. Teacher EE was emphatic in stating her belief that teacher pedagogical education should be first and technology education being secondary. The statement was the prelude to Teacher EE's concern that there are many initiatives in the district. The district's Learning Focused Schools (LFS) initiative takes precedence over CFF. Yet teachers doing CFF have to be able to juggle both projects. LFS was of higher priority yet both initiatives were to be fully implemented. She felt it was difficult to do everything and do

78

it well. Additionally, according to Teacher EE, the CFF courses were redundant and "not worth it." She openly admitted her hatred for the courses. Knowing she was expected to implement LFS into her classroom, she did not volunteer to participate in the CFF initiative. Stating she was not happy to be "pushed by the building administrator to participate," she was compelled to provide her perspective as to the feelings of the older teachers with regard to integration of technology. Teacher EE stated older teachers were put off by technology. Animosity between older and younger educators existed because the younger teachers want technology. Older teachers had the mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't' fix it." She felt older teachers will not ask because they were not comfortable, as well as embarrassed. Teacher EE also addressed the issue of the availability of technology. She felt she had access to technology most days. Again speaking for others, she reported the other teachers who did not have access to technology were jealous of those teachers who had access. After expressing the concerns of her peers, she was complimentary about the support offered by the district when learning to use technology or when having technical difficulties. She has learned most of her technology knowledge from the professional development opportunities provided by the district. The summer academies provided her the training to use the hardware and software as well as the needed time to learn. During the year if Teacher EE needed assistance she sought the support of Teacher DD or another peer. From time to time she will ask for help from one of the

79

Instructional Advisor who she felt were very helpful. She reported she sought assistance from the CFF coach less than one time per month. She reported during the interview she used technology to instruct students on most days. She was fortunate to have access to a polyvision board in her room. She, like the other participants, used her district issued laptop every day to complete managerial tasks. She affirmed her belief that technology allowed her to teach more effectively. Using this instructional tool provided her with the ability to challenge her students by addressing the different levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. The use of technology has allowed her to provide more experiences for student discussion and exploration. She explained she used her board to present the daily agenda and provide notes. When students were absent, she printed the notes from the board to give to the students when they returned. She used programs such as PowerPoint and Microsoft Word. During the observation she used the Internet to locate a video clip about plagiarism and then used the projector provided as part of the CCF initiative to show the clip. She further explained that she uses her website a teaching tool. Teacher EE posted important information such as class notes, relevant websites, and online forums for the students to reference and/or access. Another manner in which she used the Internet was to locate information such as pictures or video clips to help explain concepts or provide explanations which would provide better details about the time period of a novel being read. An example would be when the class read the Scarlet Letter. For the Scarlet Letter, the teacher was able to show the students a Witch's Hammer. By being connected to sources outside of the school, the teacher was able to show a

80

real Witch's Hammer, and provide the students a better understanding of its relevance to the story. For this teacher, being able to use technology to teach was made possible by the availability of technology not by information provided as part of the CCF courses. Teacher EE continued by providing another example of being able to offer a different learning experience through the use of technology to the student. Students conducted research related to the novel the class was reading. When the class read the Great Gatsby, the teacher asked the students to complete a project pertaining to the time period. The students used technology to conduct research and create projects about the time period. The project included the economic, political, and social aspects that were occurring during the 1920's. The end result was an art gallery of student work which indicated to the teacher the students had a better understanding of the era in which the novel was set. Prior to being connected to the world through the web, the teacher provided the background for a book. Now students can quickly research the time period in which the novel was set. The students found the connection between the political and social mindset of the country and the novel. For this teacher, the availability of technology allowed her to use technology to teach and allow her students to explore new information. But she did not believe that this availability was provided as part of the CCF courses. To further elaborate on how technology was used to augment student learning, the Tier IV English teacher indicated she used Turnitin.com. She has incorporated her website into her teaching by having students post assignments online and blog about topics being taught. This

81

allows her to read student work online and decreases the amount of paperwork that has to be toted home to grade. The seven year veteran English teacher felt using technology can be an asset as well as a detriment to student achievement. When assigning a project to be completed by locating information from different websites, a teacher must constantly monitor that appropriate websites are being viewed. She indicated if a student is fully engaged the student would be focused on the project. On the other hand if the student was not focused, he would attempt to locate inappropriate sites as well as distract others in the process. This would be the same if technology was not being used. Effective classroom management must be utilized whether or not technology was being used. When asked about using technology to assess student work, the English teacher's first comment related directly to the convenience technology has given to her. She was happy that the amount of paperwork for her has decreased. After digressing from the question, she did provide information related to student assessment by discussing her use of blogs with the students. Teacher EE felt the use of interactive and student-centered blogs affords the students more opportunity to share work and thoughts. Another positive noted by Teacher EE is technology allowed more interaction between the students and provided Teacher EE with more student insight. When reading comments posted by the students, the English teacher could assess student understanding related to the curricular topic being taught. The use of blogs helped Teacher EE to determine student learning styles and allow her to collect data which would drive her instructional decisions so as to better meet the needs of her students. She felt that once a

82

student was hooked, he gained much more information as he learned through his efforts and was not just fed the information through a teacher-centered lecture. The first observation had Teacher EE beginning her class by posting the "Thought for the Week." Students were encouraged to post thoughts about the statement on the teacher's blog. The teacher then introduced information about the creation of a thesis sentence. Teacher EE posted a sample thesis sentence for the class to view. As a class, the teacher and students discussed the provided sample. After determining the class understood the expectations of writing a thesis sentence, the class was directed to create a thesis sentence and provide supporting statements. The students posted their statements and supporting information on-line. To complete the assignment, the students searched the Electric Library. At several points during the observation, technology failed to work. Students helped their peers overcome the difficulties. At one point, Teacher EE called the Help Desk from her personal cell phone. The Help Desk quickly attended to her needs and resolved the technical issue. During the second observation, the teacher assessed student work for the majority of the eighty minute block. The objective of the day was to construct a thesis sentence - How do I write an effective thesis statement. After projecting an example of the thesis sentence to the class, the students developed a thesis sentence and then located statements to support the sentence using the electric library. Students could access the teacher's blog on her school webpage. They could leave comments and questions on the teacher's site. During both lessons, the teacher assessed student work and provided feedback during the class.

83

During the follow up interview, she mentioned that technology cannot provide the personal touch that a teacher can provide. During the observation, she met with individual students to discuss assignments and provide personal feedback. Also, she walked around critiquing student work. She noted her personal belief of a best teaching practice of monitoring student progress. It helps with classroom management. She contended that it had nothing to do with the principles of CFF. Teacher EE noted she was confident using technology. She rated herself as an 8.5 on a scale of 10 (highest). She reflected back and felt glad the district pushed her to be part of the CFF initiative since the program provided her with hardware to use to teach her students. CFF did not, however, provide her with the knowledge to use technology. Case study - Teacher FF. Teacher FF has been using technology for 15 out of his 16 years as an educator. He stated he "feels pretty good when technology is running well." When technology goes down it can get frustrating. He continued to say "when one knows how it can work and what it can help kids accomplish, technology has a lot to offer." He began by sharing a computer with colleagues to create word documents and emailing. Currently, this English teacher uses his district issued laptop to complete daily tasks of entering grades and attendance, creating word documents, listening to music, video editing, and networking with other teachers across Pennsylvania. The Tier V teacher has learned many of his technological skills from Online Communities, Personalized Professional Development, conferences, and free on-line courses. Teacher FF reported that he was very independent. He preferred the use of

84

online communities and Personalized Professional Development opportunities to learn about various instructional technology uses. Due to the tight budgets, he sought free online courses as another source to learn about technology and teaching ideas for his English classes. Teacher FF affirmed the district's staff development has provided him information through summer academies. He believed that he has learned little information from CFF courses. Another source of information for Teacher FF was his students. He confessed the students have taught him how to use some of the technology. He has learned through his online communities about new technologies and their uses. Along with learning about technology through the online communities, Teacher FF shared information about lessons and his uses of technology. Teacher FF described himself as a blend between a teacher-center and studentcentered educator. He liked conducting classes that he would classify as student-centered as he learned from the students. He explained that technology has pushed him to conduct lessons that are more student-centered. He may have not changed his style of teaching if it was not for technology. He learned about the students' unique qualities. When asked what skills were needed as a teacher, his first response was flexibility. A teacher needs to think on his feet and have a back up plan in the event "technology goes down." Another skill a teacher should possess was knowledge of the content. Before technology can be used, the teacher should know the content. Teacher AA expressed a concern if a teacher was trying to learn the content as they were implementing

85

instructional technology. Teachers must have confidence as they embrace the connection between curriculum and technology. The Tier V English teacher succinctly stated if technology is used in a purposeful focused manner driven by content it improved student participation and discipline. To put a computer in front of the student and expect it to teach would result in classroom management problems. This would be the same if a teacher were to put worksheets in front of the students and not teach the concepts on the worksheets. Technology is not a baby sitter. The use of technology has to be meaningful to the content being taught. Teacher FF explained he has not been forced to use technology. At one time, a good team was in place referring to the personnel who once worked at the school. Currently, the school is missing a teacher cheerleader. With the different initiatives such as CFF and Learning Focused Schools, the staff may be "hitting a wall" with no one to help boost the morale. Without a leader, the staff does not take care of the equipment. Teacher FF commented that he is fortunate to have access to laptops and the technology is updated. When grading projects, he used rubrics to grade the content not the technology. An interesting point was mentioned during his interview as he was torn between grading or not grading student technology skills since the world heavily relies on technology. He assessed student work based on student knowledge of his content area of English. He hoped this was not doing his students a disservice. During the observation of his English III class, student learning was assessed as students completed a grammar check using the interactive whiteboard. Students went to the board to make corrections to the sentence that was projected on the board. Feedback was provided for all

86

to see and corrections could be made immediately. He was able to determine if the concept needed to be re-taught. During the first observation, a note was documented regarding student behavior. Some students were not focused on the board. A student made an inappropriate comment about his drink. The teacher addressed the comment and proceeded with class. The teacher was attentive to student behavior as well as the use of technology. Also noted during this observation was a vote by the class to not use the interactive board. The students wanted to discuss the information as opposed to documenting the information on the board for all to see. During the second observation, the activities observed were discussions of an ethical dilemma and answers to a quiz. Technology was used for less than 25 percent of the block and was adequate according to the Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric. The teacher projected the ethical dilemma on the board. This was the only use of technology during this lesson. Thus technology was deemed "irrelevant" to the content according to Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric. The students verbally discussed their decision as how they would act if they were faced with the ethical dilemma. Students also conversed about the correctness of quiz responses. Unless it had been set up as an online discussion, technology most likely would not have enhanced student learning. Teacher FF reflected upon the lesson in the follow up interview.

He reported he liked the outcome of the lesson. He was able to assess student responses during the discussion. He continued by stating the student interactions and face to face conversations were important and provided him the opportunity to assess student understanding. He did not

87

want to change the format of this lesson. He would change some of the questions posed during the discussion. Teacher FF embraced technology and its uses. He continues to learn more about technology and seeks better uses for technology within his classroom. Research Question One The question, "How have teacher's perceptions (attitudes) toward instructional technology changed as a result of the implementation of the Classrooms For the Future initiative?" was addressed through the analysis of information collected through the use of a demographic survey , Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey, personal interviews, and observations. Demographic and Technology Beliefs and Competency Surveys. Statements 59 through 69 from Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey were used to address the first research question. Teachers were asked to strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with statements pertaining to technology integration into their lesson and classroom. The results of the teachers regarding technology integration are found in Table 4. Table 4 Teacher Perceptions of Technology Integration into Classroom
Statements # 59 - Computer activities integration # 60 - Supports content learning # 61 - Student collaboration using 2(33.3) technology # 62 -Evaluate technology uses 3 (50.0) 2(33.3) 1 (16.7) 0(00.0) 4(66.7) 0(00.0) 0(00.0) SA 2(33.3) 2(33.3) A 4(66.7) 3 (50.0) D 0(00.0) 1 (16.7) SD 0(00.0) 0(00.0)

88

# 63 - Students use a variety of technology # 6 4 - Projects supported by technology use # 65 - Technology supports state standards # 66 - Technology supports recordkeeping

2 (33.3) 2 (33.3) 4 (66.7) 5 (83.3)

3 (50.0) 4 (66.7) 2 (33.3) 1 (16.7)

1 (16.7) 0 (00.0) 0 (00.0) 0 (00.0)

0 (00.0) 0 (00.0) 0 (00.0) 0 (00.0)

tasks # 6 7 - Technology assists in meeting the 3 (50.0) needs of the students # 68 - Encourages students to use technology to demonstrate knowledge. # 69 - Provides new learning experiences using technology 3 (50.0) 3 (50.0) 0 (00.0) 0 (00.0) 3 (50.0) 2 (33.3) 1 (16.7) 0 (00.0) 2(33.3) 1 (16.7) 0 (00.0)

Note. SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; D = Disagree; SD = Strongly Disagree In Statement #59, the participants were asked to respond to the statement, "I integrate computer activities into the curriculum." All six (6) teachers agreed with the statement. The science teacher (Teacher AA) and English teacher (Teacher FF) strongly agreed with this statement. Teacher BB (English teacher), Teacher CC (science teacher), Teacher DD (mathematics teacher), and Teacher EE (English Teacher) agreed with the statement. In Statement #60, the participants were asked to respond to the statement, "Technology plays an integral role in supporting content learning in my class." The science teacher (Teacher AA) and English teacher (Teacher FF) strongly agreed with this statement while the science teacher (Teacher CC), mathematics teacher (Teacher DD), and least experienced English teacher (Teacher EE) agreed with the statement. The twenty year veteran English teacher (Teacher BB) was the only teacher to disagree with this statement.

89

In Statement #61, the participants were asked to respond to the statement, "I encourage students to work collaboratively on technology-based activities". All six (6) teachers agreed with the statement. The Science teacher (Teacher AA) and English teacher (Teacher FF) strongly agreed with the statement. Teacher BB (English teacher), Teacher CC (science teacher), Teacher DD (mathematics teacher), Teacher EE (English teacher) agreed with the statement. For Statement #62, the participants were asked to respond to the statement, "I locate and evaluate educational technologies including software, hardware, and online resources for use with my students." Teacher AA (science teacher), Teacher EE (seven year veteran English teacher) and Teacher FF (English teacher) strongly agreed while Teacher CC (science teacher) and Teacher DD (mathematics teacher) agreed with the statement. Teacher BB (twenty year veteran English teacher) was the only teacher to disagree with this statement. For Statement #63, teachers provided agreement or disagreement to the statement, "I require student to use a variety of software tools and electronic resources to support learning." Teachers AA (Science teacher) and DD (mathematics teacher) strongly agreed with the statement. The English teachers, each possessing 16+ years of service (Teachers BB and FF) and the science teacher (Teacher CC) agreed with the statement. Teacher EE (seven year veteran English teacher) cast the only mark of disagreement. Statement #64, the participants were asked to respond to the statement, "I use technology to support project-and problem-based learning activities in my classroom." Teachers AA (science teacher) and DD (mathematics teacher) strongly agreed with the

90

statement. All three English teachers (Teachers BB, EE, and FF) and science teacher (Teacher CC) agreed with the statement. Statement #65 read "I use technology in my classroom to help support the state curricular standards." Again the Science teacher (Teacher AA) strongly agreed with this statement along with the mathematics teacher (Teacher DD), least experience English teacher (Teacher EE), and the English teacher (Teacher FF). The English teacher of 20 years (Teacher BB) and the Science teacher (Teacher CC) agreed with Statement #65. Statement #66, found that five (5) out of six (6) teachers strongly agreed with the statement "I use technology to assist me with classroom management and recordkeeping activities." Those teachers strongly agreeing with the statement are the Science teacher (Teacher AA), English teacher of 20 years (Teacher BB), mathematics teacher (Teacher DD), least experience English teacher (Teacher EE), and English teacher of 16 years (Teacher FF). The science teacher (Teacher CC) agreed with Statement #66. Statement #67, the participants were asked to respond to the statement, "Technology helps me meet the individual needs of a variety of students in my class." Teacher AA (science teacher), Teacher DD (mathematics teacher), and Teacher FF (English teacher) strongly agreed with this statement. Teachers CC (science teacher)

and Teacher EE (English teacher) agreed while Teacher BB (most experienced English teacher) disagreed. Statement #68 asked teachers to agree or disagree with the statement, "I encourage my students to use technology to demonstrate their knowledge of content in non-traditional ways (eg. websites, multimedia products)." Teacher AA (Science

91

teacher), Teacher DD (mathematics teacher), and Teacher FF (English teacher) strongly agreed with Statement #68. Teacher BB (English teacher), and Teacher CC (science teacher) agreed while Teacher EE (English teacher) disagreed. The final statement, #69 about technology integration dealt with using technology to design new learning experiences. Teacher AA (science teacher), Teacher DD (mathematics teacher), and Teacher FF (English teacher) strongly agreed with the statement, "I use technology to design new learning experiences for student incorporating the unique capabilities of technology. Teacher BB (English teacher), Teachers CC (science teacher), and Teacher EE (English teacher) agreed with the statement. Interviews. Each teacher was asked a series of pre-scripted questions. The first question asked "how long teachers have used technology as an educator." This question was to determine if a teacher used technology prior the onset of CFF. Teacher AA (science teacher) noted he has been teaching for twelve (12) years and has used technology for all twelve (12) years. Teacher BB (English teacher) began her teaching career in California twenty (20) years ago and has used technology since she began teaching. Teacher CC (science teacher) began her teaching career five (5) years ago and has used technology since she began as educator. Teacher DD (mathematics teacher) has used technology for 5.5 year out of the six (6) years she has been teaching. Teacher EE (English teacher) has been teaching for seven (7) year but has used technology for only five (5) of those years. Teacher FF (English Teacher) has used technology for fifteen (15) out of the sixteen (16) years he has been teaching.

92

Since the research of Groff and Mouza (2008) indicated teacher attitudes and beliefs are important in the integration of technology, the teachers were asked to list the skills they feel were essential to their jobs during the initial interview. The word technology was not included in the question but teachers were provided with an overview of the study prior to the start of the interview. This question was to assist in determining the attitude and belief of each teacher. Each teacher was aware that the focus of the study was instructional technology. When asked about the skills employed as a part of their job, each teacher noted their own style of teaching and provided the skills that they felt were essential when conducting a class. Five (5) educators of the six (6) did not mention technology skills as needed to complete their jobs. These five educators felt skills such as flexibility, the ability to think on your feet, and confidence and knowledge of content area are essential in creating a learning environment in the classroom. As the interview progressed, Teacher AA (science teacher) mentioned classroom management and building a rapport with the students as critical components of running a classroom. Teacher AA also mentioned that "you have to monitor the kids as technology can not do it." Teacher BB (English teacher) listed the need to have verbal skills and to communicate in a clear, concise manner. When Teacher BB (English teacher) was asked the reason she did not list technology skills, she responded she "had thought about it but these skills are needed in every class everyday." She did not reference CFF in her response to this question.

93

When answering the interview question about the skills needed to teach, Teacher DD (mathematics teacher) was the only teacher to discuss technology as part of her response. She stated "one must know how to manage technology as it is used daily to complete paperwork and respond to emails." Regarding classroom use, the installation of the polyvision board made her realize that she and her students would have to learn to utilize the technology together if it was going to be used effectively. She provided a story about her perceptions toward the integration of instructional technology. She provided the example of the first month after the installation of a polyvision board in her classroom. She described it "as a long month." She and the students learned the capabilities of the board, together. She openly admitted to her students that she would make mistakes and needed their help to learn correctly. Her mindset is now that she can learn as much from the students as they can learn from her because of integration and access to technology.. She indicated being honest with her students is important and has always been open with her students since she began teaching. Teacher EE (English teacher) noted that "teacher education is first and technology education is second." When asked about technology replacing a teacher, she said "technology should not replace the teacher." The focus of the Classrooms For the Future initiative and the theory of technology integration is to have a student-centered or constructivist classroom. According to Goos (2005) the goal of the educator' use of technology is for technology to become an extension of self with it being integrated seamlessly into the everyday teaching

94

responsibilities of the teacher. Therefore the participants were asked to identify their classroom as either student or teacher-centered. The least experienced English teacher, (Teacher EE) stated that her classroom was student-centered. She said she "is able to address more levels of learning on Bloom's Taxonomy by allowing students to participate in more interactive activities such as online blogging." Teacher EE (English teacher) felt her focus represented the far-limit of the student-centered learning continuum. Her focus was less about the perceived constraints of the discipline or topic, and more about the needs of her students. Teacher EE elaborated "I like to bring information into the class that brings the book or story alive. The students are able to make better connections." The ability to bring more information and interactive activities into the classroom is the reason to use technology. She noted she was forced to participate in CFF, it is not the reason for her use of technology within her classroom. The other two (2) English teachers, Teacher BB and Teacher FF noted their lessons tend to be blended in terms of student/teacher focus, depending on the topic being presented. The English teacher identified as Teacher FF felt technology has pushed him to provide a classroom that was more student-centered. His contention was that the use of technology was more conducive to student-centered learning in that it allowed for more student exploration. During the interview process, Teacher FF said "I learn as much from the students as the students learn from me when incorporating technology into the classroom." He continued to note that "with the use of the technology, students are able to explore and provide personal insight to the topics being studied." He discovered

95

many of the uses of technology on his own through professional organizations and the use of online chats and stated his own initiative as the reason he uses technology. Teacher FF (Science teacher) felt technology has pushed him to provide a classroom that is more student-centered. The teacher contended the use of technology was more conducive to student-centered learning in that it allows for more student exploration. He said "technology pushed me to become more student-centered. Technology pushed me to allow for more student-centered learning. The kids show unique perspectives. There is a lot of value in this." There was no mention that CFF motivated him to change his instruction to become more student-centered. Teacher BB (English teacher), a twenty year veteran, noted she has been using technology since "before it was popular." She used it as a tool to enhance her lessons in the hopes of increasing student learning. She does not use it just to use it. She contended using technology must be the best method for students to learn the material. She stressed she "will not use technology for entertainment purposes but instead what is best for the material being taught." She was turned off by CFF as its personnel referred to her as a "dinosaur." Teacher BB stated "technology is a tool, a supportive tool for education." Teacher AA (science teacher) teaches Physics, Chemistry, and Physical Science explained he conducted "either a student-centered or teacher-centered classroom depending upon the branch of Science being taught." Teacher AA contended the lower level course allows for more exploration to be completed; however, the higher level course must have concepts taught. He agreed with the mathematics teacher noting,

96

"these concepts must be taught by the teacher to be understood and correctly demonstrated by the students. Failure to understand the concepts may lead to difficulty in understanding theories presented later in the course." He indicated that he will incorporate more technology as he becomes more comfortable and works out the glitches. Teachers DD and CC identified themselves as mostly teacher-centered teachers. The reason provided for this designation of classroom environment was due in part to the subject being taught. The mathematics teacher (Teacher DD) stated "mathematics is a difficult subject to allow for student-centered. A new topic is introduced everyday that the students have never seen. Students will not always be able to learn on their own. The concepts must be learned in a specific way. If a student would be able to learn a concept in their manner, it may be understood and applied incorrectly." The less experienced Science teacher, identified as Teacher CC felt that she continues to gain more teaching experience her classroom will evolve into a studentcentered classroom. Thus hopes that her instructional practices will change as she grows as an educator not as a result of CFF. Observations. During the observations, teachers' behaviors and instructional activities supported their responses to the interview questions. The mathematics teacher (Teacher DD) conducted a Jeopardy style review game using her laptop, digital video projector, and a CD provided by the textbook company. She acted as the emcee. The students provided the answers to the questions. At times, the answers required a student to show the problem on the polyvision board. The student wrote the problem and the answer on the

97

board with the teacher providing much of the explanation to the answers. This behavior supports DD's comment regarding all the students must learn a math concept in the same manner. During the observation of her second lesson, she used the camera found on her laptop to project her drawing shapes needed for the Geometry lesson. As she created the sample shapes by drawing and cutting, the students copied her directions at their seats. Again, she led the lesson. When the teacher was finished with the demonstration, each student had created their own set of shapes. The students used the shapes to problem solve the math problem posed by the teacher. The students were given the last forty minutes of the block to solve problems using the prepared shapes. There was no technology utilized during the final half of the class period, as it was not deemed essential in solving the geometry problems. This problem solving activity allowed for hands on exploration to solve the problem to find the area. Out of the 160 minute observation, Teacher DD (mathematics teacher) led the class for 120 minutes. She conducted the activity and the focus was on her. This instructional method supported her belief that her classroom is teacher-centered and hands on activities are as important as the use of technology. It adds credence to her statement that "21st century learning is not only about technology but also about problem solving on their own." Teacher DD's sentiment was reiterated by the five other teachers in the study. Teacher FF (English teacher) said he "felt an oral discussion by the students would be the best practice to teach the material than an activity using technology." Technology was

98

not utilized as was evident during one of the observations of Teacher FF. When asked if he would have changed the lesson, he stated "he would not." Research Question Two The question, "Has CFF changed teacher's instructional practices and in what way?" was addressed through the analysis of information collected through the use a demographic survey, Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey, personal interviews, and observations. Demographic and Technology Beliefs and Competency Surveys. Statements #47, #48, #50 and #55 through 58 from Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey were used to address the first research question. Teachers were asked to strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with statements pertaining to technology integration into their lessons and classroom. The data collected from the Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey section on technology beliefs were analyzed to provide additional information in order to better answer the second research question. Teachers expressed their beliefs regarding

instructional strategies related to the use of technology. Statements #47, #50, and #55 through #58 were used to address the second research question. The results of the teacher responses are recorded in Table 5. Table 5 Teacher Beliefs Regarding Instructional Strategies when Incorporating Technology
Statement # 47 - Teacher supports technology use # 50 - Content knowledge is more important SA 5 (83.3) 3 (50.0) A 1 (16.7) 3 (50.0) D 0 (00.0) 0 (00.0) SD 0 (00.0) 0 (00.0)

99

# 55 - Technology helps do things that would not be 5 (83.3) able to be done # 56 - Knowledge of technology improves teaching # 57 - Technology interferes with human interaction # 58 - Technology maximizes learning 5 (83.3) 0 (00.0) 4 (66.7) 1 (16.7) 2 (33.3) 2 (33.3) 0 (00.0) 2 (33.3) 0 (00.0) 0 (00.0) 2 (33.3) 0 (00.0) 1 (16.7) 0 (00.0) 0 (00.0)

Note. SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; D = Disagree; SD = Strongly Disagree As noted in Table 5, five (5) of the six (6) teachers strongly agreed with statement #47, "I support the use of technology in the classroom." Teacher BB was the lone educator that agreed with the statement. Teachers AA (science teacher), CC (science teacher), DD (mathematics teacher) EE (English teacher) and FF (English teacher) strongly agree with the statement. Statement #50 asks teachers to agree or disagree with a statement regarding content knowledge taking priority over technology. Teacher BB (English teacher),

Teacher DD (mathematics teacher), and Teacher FF (English teacher) strongly agreed with the statement, Content knowledge should take priority over technology skills. Teacher AA (science teacher) and Teachers CC (science teacher), and Teacher EE (English teacher) agreed with the statement. The results were the same for statements #55 and #56: five teachers strongly agreed with both statements. The five teachers who strongly agreed with statement #55,

Technology helps teachers do things with their classes that they would not be able to do without it and statement #56, Knowledge about technology will improve my teaching are Teacher AA, Teacher CC, Teacher DD, Teacher EE, and Teacher FF. Teacher BB agreed with the statements.

100

In statement #57, Technology might interfere with "human" interactions between teachers and students noted the most disagreement from the teachers. Four of the six teachers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement about technologies interfering with human interaction. Those teachers who stated they strongly disagreed were Teachers CC and Teacher EE. Teacher AA and Teacher FF disagreed with the statement. Teacher BB and Teacher DD agreed with the statement. The final statement #58 had four (4) teachers strongly agreeing with the statement about technologies facilitating a variety of instructional strategies. Those teachers were Teacher AA Teacher CC, Teacher EE (English teacher), and Teacher FF (English teacher). Teachers BB (English teacher) and DD (mathematics teacher) agreed with statement #58 which stated "Technology facilitates the use of a wide variety of instructional strategies designed to maximize learning." Interviews. The second research question had teachers discussing changes in instructional practices due to the implementation of CFF. The practices of each teacher were explained during the interview process as each teacher provided an explanation of the instructional practices utilized within the classroom. Answers to the second question overlapped with the responses given to the first research question. During the interview portion of the study, Teacher BB said she "may not be proficient according the CFF people but she feels technology is an instructional tool that she does utilize." This English teacher of twenty years (Teacher BB) clearly articulated that she "will not use technology to entertain" the students. Teacher BB (English

101

Teacher) required one (1) project per semester to be completed by the students. She stated she had her students create a newspaper using the word processing program, Pages. She liked that the students are able to display the understanding of the standards in a manner different than simple answers on a test. When requiring the use of technology to complete a project, Teacher BB (English teacher) noted a difference in the finished project depended on each student's ability level. The higher level students were more creative and successful when using

technology to complete the projects. Teacher BB used rubrics when grading the assigned projects. During the observation of Teacher BB, a rubric was provided as a guide when the students were developing the "Declaration of Independence" project. The rubric articulated the expectations of the project. The rubric was a paper handout and not technological. Teacher BB (English teacher) noted her use of technology was dictated by its availability. She had to sign up to use the laptops and other hardware well in advance. She also hoped the Internet would be working on the day she planned to use the technology. According to Martin and Shulman (2006) stated that teacher usage of technology depends on access to adequate technology. In the case of Teacher BB (English teacher), she did not use technology because it was not always available for her use. Teacher BB noted that the inability to access the technology hindered some teachers' ability to seize teachable moments. The availability of technology presented a problem since it was not always available to use and was mentioned by all six (6) participants. One of the participants

102

talked from personal experience such as Teacher BB while others were speaking on behalf of their colleagues. Four (4) participants felt they had easy access to the highly popular laptop carts. Those four teachers were Teacher AA, Teacher CC, Teacher DD, and Teacher FF. During one of the observations, a laptop cart was taken by another teacher so his class could use the laptops during the block. The four (4) teachers who felt they had easy access to the hardware noted the frustration of peers who had to sign up for carts well in advance. The Classrooms For the Future initiative allowed the district to purchase more hardware such as laptops, cameras, and printers. During the interview process Teacher EE expressed that it would be great to have access to a cart at all times to be able to more fully utilize the technology. An example given by Teacher EE for providing a different learning experience using technology was having students conduct research related to the novel being read as part of the curriculum. Prior to being connected to the World Wide Web, Teacher EE (English teacher) would provide background information for a book during her lectures. Now students can quickly research the time period in which the novel was set. The students can find the connection between the political and social mind-set of the country in which the novel is set thus students may be better able to understand the novel. When the class was reading The Great Gatsby, the teacher asked the students to complete a project pertaining to the time period. The project was to include the economic, political, and social aspects that were occurring during the 1920s. The result was an art gallery of student work that indicated to the teacher the students' understanding of the era in which the novel was set.

103

For The Scarlet Letter, the teacher was able to show the students a Witch's Hammer. By being connected to the World Wide Web, this self proclaimed studentcentered teacher was able to show a picture of a real Witch's hammer. The students were then better able to understand its relevance to the story. For Teacher EE being able to use technology to teach was made possible by the availability of the technology, not by information provided as part of the mandated Classrooms For the Future initiative teacher courses. Teacher DD (mathematics teacher) required unit projects to be completed. The projects allowed for student exploration while exhibiting the correct application of concepts. The student projects could be completed with or without the use of technology. The individual student selected how a project would be completed. Teacher DD said, "some of the best projects have been done without the aid of technology." This in and of itself, would be in opposition to the principles of CFF. The mathematics teacher stated "21st century learning is not only about technology but also about problem solving on their own." Teacher BB felt technology may not be the best tool for every student. For the purpose of allowing absent students quick and easy access to classroom information, Teacher DD (mathematics teacher) along with Teacher EE (English teacher) posted notes on their websites. Students with Individualized Education Plans (IEP) had the requirements that notes were to be taken for the student. Having the notes posted online allowed access to the notes and met the requirements of the IEP. The math teacher posted videos of classroom instructions as well. Another means to provide class notes was by printing the information documented on the polyvision board during

104

instruction. The printed copy was then provided to the absent students upon returning to school. As noted in the research related to the use of instructional technology, a factor associated with the teacher such as the beliefs of the teacher influence a teacher to use or not use technology (Groff and Mouza, 2008). Teacher CC believed she "needs to become more experienced in her teaching." Teacher CC explained further that as she becomes more experienced she may change her style of teaching to more studentcentered pedagogy. She felt this change in focus may change her instructional priorities. Teacher AA (science teacher) noted during his interview that he "will use more technology as the kinks are worked out." Factors such as problem when using technology were noted by Groff and Mouza (2008) and are said to influence teacher use of technology. Teacher AA explained he works through the glitches of Moodle because he wanted to use it more often in his class. As he works out the technology problems, he became more comfortable with its use. During his observation, he was observed fixing technology issues instead of monitoring the progress of his class. All six (6) teachers were clear in stating the following: technology is a tool that has to be utilized in a correct manner, technology is not appropriate at all times, technology is not a substitute for the teacher, and teachers need to have to have classroom management skills in order to implement the technology effectively. Teacher EE commented that a teacher has to be extremely alert to which sites the students are attempting to access and explore.

105

Teacher AA (science teacher), Teacher CC (science teacher), and Teacher DD (mathematics teacher) indicated that the Classrooms For the Future initiative courses were not essential in their decision as to how material would be taught. Comfort level and student needs were the motivating factors in the selection of instructional methods. Technical support was reported as a reason that a teacher will or will not use technology (Ertmer, 1999 and Forgasz, 2006). A question on the Demographic Survey asked: how often do you seek guidance from the CFF coach or Technology Instructional Advisor? All the participants responded less than once a month. During the interviews,

those teachers who needed guidance regarding technology sought assistance from an Instructional Advisor (IA). Four of the six educators, Teacher AA (science teacher), Teacher CC (science teacher), Teacher DD (English teacher), and Teacher FF (English teacher) utilized the assistance provided by the district's Tech and Media but at varying degrees. To further elaborate on the topic of technology support, all of the participants felt they were self-sufficient when learning the capabilities of specific technology. If support was needed by the participants, six (6) of the six teachers sought guidance or assistance from fellow teachers. The reason for the choice was that the CFF coach was not readily available. According to Teacher EE (English teacher) the coach was required to be at trainings that rendered him inaccessible. Teachers AA (science teacher), CC (science teacher), DD (English teacher), and FF (English teacher) explained their use of the district's technology department. The district provided Instructional Advisors (IAs) who were more readily available than the

106

CFF coach. The IAs attended faculty meetings to provided tutorials for programs to be used in the classroom. The IAs were available to assist in the classroom when a teacher was incorporating a new program or piece of technology. The IAs conducted many workshops instructing the teachers how to use the different hardware and programs. The IAs have been serving as district technical resources prior to the onset of Classrooms for the Future. Teacher EE said she "sought the assistance of Teacher DD (Mathematics teacher) as they teach beside each other. Teacher DD knows what she is doing and many other teachers use her expertise as well." To further elaborate on the topic of teacher support, teachers do not rely on the Classrooms For the Future initiative or the CFF coach's support to change instructional strategies. They also indicated the courses have not provided them with any strategies or uses of technology. Teacher EE (English teacher) laughed as she said "I would not have participated in CFF if I was not strongly encouraged by the administration." She added that "I hate the courses. They are redundant and not worth it. I did not get much out of it." One of the English teachers felt that the district provided ample time to learn new technology. The summer staff development programs provided an avenue to learn the uses and opportunities of the technology for the classroom. As for the CFF courses, Teacher BB (English teacher) stated she "hates" the CFF courses. Four (4) of the six (6) teachers did not compliment CFF courses. She continued to state that the courses were identified as "a waste of time." She enjoyed using technology whenever it was available.

107

Unfortunately for her, it was not always available for her to utilize as was discussed previously. When comparing the activities witnessed during the observations, she provided the most opportunity for her students to utilize technology. The assignment was to complete a "Teenager Declaration of Independence." This project had students using cameras, laptops, and iMovie. The students took full responsibility for their own learning. English Teacher FF said "I have learned many of the skills from Online Communities, Personalized Professional Development, conferences, and free online courses." Teacher FF described himself as very independent. He took the initiative to seek information from others and to learn more than what was available though the Classrooms For the Future initiative. This English teacher gained a lot by reaching out to peers across the state by using online chats such at Twitter to gain support for technology and its uses. He noted that since he was a veteran of 16 years, he has had time to learn the content. Thus, he had the time to learn about new technology. Teacher CC (Science teacher) liked to explore the programs on her own. She noted the reason for this as she "was in the business world prior to beginning [her] teaching career. [She] learned a lot during this time." Other discussion resulted as part of the question about technology support. All six (6) participants complemented the district on its summer staff development offerings. English teachers BB and EE were complimentary of the district noting that during the summer staff development program, the teachers had the opportunity to learn about new

108

technology and programs, the appropriate uses of technology, and the time to work with the technology to better understand the versatility of the technology. During several of the conversations, the teachers mentioned another service available to the teachers was the district's Help Desk program. The service was available for technical difficulties such as a non-functioning laptop or the inability to access email. Service was available by calling a phone number provided by the district. A service ticket was provided to the person in technological distress. A member of the district's technology department would visit the person making the request to then address the concern. Teacher DD (mathematics teacher) provided assistance to many of her peers in the building. Through the interview she indicated that she wanted to be the CFF coach because of her love for technology. Ultimately, she was not given the opportunity to be the CFF coach, but assisted her peers on a daily basis. All six (6) felt that other than the equipment, the CFF program had not provided them any information or support that was pertinent to the classroom. Simply stated by Teacher EE (English teacher), "CFF is horrible." Observations. Behaviors observed during the observations provided supporting evidence in terms of responses for this question as well. Four (4) of the six (6) teachers concurred that technology is an instructional tool that can improve instruction since it allows the students to experience learning in different modalities, and in a manner to which they, as digital natives, are familiar.

109

During the observations, it was observed that the primary use of the polyvision board was as a projection screen. All six (6) teachers utilized their boards in this manner. They projected class notes, video clips, class projects, and a demonstration as to how to make shapes needed for a math problem. English teachers DD and FF used the capabilities of the board to allow the students to show changes in grammar and provide solutions to math problems. One of the science teachers used it as an electronic Ticket Out the Door to assess student knowledge. This science teacher placed information presented during the class on the board. Before exiting the class, students approached the board, touched the board to indicate their answers and left the classroom. This feedback informed the teacher regarding the students understanding of the material. Discussion as to the teachers' effective use of technology to assess student learning will occur later in this chapter. To further elaborate on how technology was used to augment student learning, Teacher EE (English teacher) connected to a website to a show clip regarding plagiarism. Although not used during the observation, Teacher EE indicated she used Turnitin.com. She has incorporated her website into her teaching by having students post assignments online and blog about topics being taught. This allowed her to read student work online and decreased the amount of paperwork that has to be graded at home. During the follow up interview, she mentioned that technology can not provide the personal touch that a teacher can provide. During the observation, she met with individual students to discuss assignments and provide feedback. Also, she walked around the classroom during the lesson critiquing student work. She noted that monitoring student progress helped with

110

classroom management. This has nothing to do the principles of the Classrooms For the Future initiative. Lack of classroom management was noted during one of the observations. During this observation, the teacher was making corrections on the teacher's webpage instead of monitoring the conversations and behaviors of the students. The students were off task for most of the class. They were supposed to be building a webpage on the unit being studied at the time. Other off task activities included a student throwing a pencil to another student across the room and trying to engage the observer in conversation. Another point regarding teacher integration of technology that was repeated during the interviews and re-emphasized during the observations was that technology was seen as a tool that can, if available, be used to enhance the learning process. The teachers emphasized that they do like to use technology. Since technology was becoming more available, it was being used more often. Unfortunately for Teacher BB (more experienced female English teacher), it was not always available to employ during a lesson. In order to enhance learning, technology needs to be available. In summarizing the responses and behaviors of the participants, technology changed the delivery of the curriculum. It allowed easier access to materials outside of the classroom. However, the teachers, through their own words and actions, stated that using technology was the most versatile teaching tools currently in education. Many teachers provided answers that stated teachings of the Classrooms For the Future initiative, did not change their instructional practices. The availability of new hardware and programs has certainly impacted their delivery.

Ill

Research Question Three The question, "What are the teacher's perceptions of the influences of CFF on their students?" was addressed through the analysis of information collected through the use a demographic Survey , Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey, personal interviews, and observations. Demographic and Technology Beliefs and Competency Surveys. Statements #48, #49, and #52 from Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey were used to address the third research question. Teachers were asked to strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with statements pertaining to student learning. Three of the statements found on the survey pertained to the assessment of student learning. The results of the teachers' beliefs regarding assessment of student learning are found in Table 6. Table 6 Teacher Beliefs Regarding Student Achievement when Using Technology
Statement # 48 - Variety of technology improves student 4(66.7) learning # 49 - Incorporating technology helps students 4(66.7) learn # 52 - Student motivation 2(33.3) 4(66.7) 0(00.0) 0(00.0) 2(33.3) 0(00.0) 0(00.0) 2(33.3) 0(00.0) 0(00.0) SA A D SD

Note. SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; D = Disagree; SD = Strongly Disagree Statement #48 had the teachers rate a statement about technologies being important to student learning. Teachers agreed or disagreed with the statement, "A variety of Technologies are import for student learning." Teachers AA (science teacher),

112

CC (science teacher), DD (mathematics teacher), and EE (English teacher) strongly agreed with the statement. English teachers BB and FF agreed with Statement #48. Statement #49 asked teachers to agree or disagree with the statement "Incorporating technology into instruction helps students learn. The science teacher (Teacher AA) strongly agreed with this statement along with the mathematics teacher (Teacher DD), least experience English teacher (Teacher EE), and the English teacher (Teacher FF). The English teacher of 20+ years (Teacher BB) and the Science teacher (Teacher CC) agreed with Statement #49. Statement #52 discusses student learning. In Statement #52, teachers were asked to agree or disagree with this statement, "Students motivation increases when technology is integrated into the curriculum." All six (6) teachers agreed with the statement. The English teacher (Teacher FF) and Science teacher (Teacher AA) strongly agreed with this statement. Interviews. According to CFF student engagement, attendance and performance will improve when technology is used to instruct students (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2006). Collection of data through assessment was critical if this claim was to be supported. Assessment of student learning during lessons provided the teacher with information regarding student understanding. All six teachers noted during the personal interviews that they used technology to assess student learning in some form. Teachers knew that student assessment was a valuable component of the planning or alterations of daily lessons. The teachers indicated during the interview process and also demonstrated

113

the use of technology to assess student understanding of skills and concepts. One (1) of the teachers commented that with technology, she has a more efficient means to assess student learning. Teacher AA (science teacher) indicated during the interview that he used productivity software to assess student learning. He commented that "students are more engaged and students interact positively when technology is used." He continued to say that "if a student wants to get off task, the student will get into trouble." He could not comment as to whether student achievement had improved as he had not kept data regarding this all important issue. He commented that students could receive immediate feedback especially when using GoogleDocs. He contended that student participation had increased since all the students had the opportunity to participate through online programs. To continue Teacher AA's use of information collected via the use of technology, web assignment logs were utilized. He reviewed the information related to student logging onto the class website. The logs provided information as to the student's diligence when completing an assignment. He gave an example of a student who worked only one (1) day on a week long assignment and asked for an extension to complete the assignment. This teacher was less inclined to provide extra time to this student than to another student who worked every day but did not grasp the concept. Teacher BB (English teacher) reported during the interview process that student achievement and behavior depended on the academic level of the students. In her opinion, lower level students like to use technology, but it was more difficult for them.

114

She stated "the higher levels are capable of completing more advanced projects." She integrated one project using technology in each unit. The lack of using technology on a consistent basis was due to the fact that the laptop carts have to be scheduled well in advance. The use of technology to assess student learning was therefore difficult since access to the technology was not always available. She has adapted and assessed student learning using other methods. Teacher EE (English teacher) felt using technology could be an asset as well as a determent to student achievement. The English teacher (Teacher EE) noted when assigning a project to be completed by locating information from different websites, she must constantly monitor that appropriate websites are being viewed. She indicated if a student was fully engaged the student was focused on the project. On the other hand if the student was not focused, he would attempt to locate inappropriate sites as well as distract others in the process. She continued to say "this would be the same if technology was not being used. Effective classroom management must be utilized whether with or without the use of technology." As the discussion continued, this English teacher's (Teacher EE) commented that technology has cut down on paperwork. She said: I use blogs to assist in assessing student responses. It allows more interaction between the students and provides me with more insight into their thinking. By blogging, the students are able to explain what they learned by completing a specific assignment or project. Blogging is more

115

interactive and student-centered as it affords the students more opportunity to share work and thoughts. The use of blogs helped her to determine student learning, which in turn allowed her to adjust assignments to meet the needs of her students. She felt that once a student was hooked, he gained much more information as he learned through his efforts and was not just fed the information through a teacher-centered lecture. Teacher FF (English teacher) succinctly stated "if technology is used in a purposeful focused manner, driven by content, it improves student participation and discipline." He continued by saying: to put a computer in front of the student and expect it to teach will result in classroom management problems. This would be the same if a teacher were to put worksheets in front of the students and not teach. Technology is not a baby sitter. The use of technology has to be meaningful to the content being taught as well as be demonstrated to be a meaningful application for the students. Teacher FF (English teacher) stated during the interview that the use of the polyvision board when completing a grammar activity such as this allowed him to determine if the concept needed to be re-taught. A dilemma was expressed by Teacher FF (English teacher) in regard to assessing students and the use of technology. When grading projects, he used rubrics to grade the academic portion of the project, not technology. An interesting point was mentioned during his interview as he is torn between grading or not grading student technology skills since the world heavily relies on technology. He assesses student work based on

116

student knowledge of his content area of English. He commented that he hoped he "is not doing his students a disservice." The least experienced science teacher (Teacher CC) taught her students to analyze data. In comparison to the other teachers participating in this study, she provided the most information as to the use of technology to analyze student achievement. She has not seen a big gain in student achievement but she did feel student interest level was higher. She indicated another aspect that has brought gains for students was in the area of problem solving. Technology afforded the students more opportunities to solve problems. The mathematics teacher (Teacher DD) used projects as well to assess student understanding. She utilized a project as an alternative to a paper final exam. Use of the final exam project allowed for students to show applications of math concepts. Teacher DD allowed students the option of using technology or not. She stated "some students are more comfortable completing a traditional project using poster board, wood, glue and markers, while others excel using technology." She noted that college prep students usually opt for using technology while the lower level math students chose hands-on projects. One of the better projects submitted was a structure built out of balsa wood. She cautioned that when using technology to complete projects "some students use all the bells and whistles and miss the appropriate application of the concepts."

117

Observations. Five (5) of the six (6) teachers demonstrated the use of technology to assess student knowledge or had students use technology to demonstrate knowledge during their respective observations. The twenty (20) year veteran English teacher assessed the Declaration of Independence project during the second observation. The first observation consisted of the students using video camera, iMovie and other programs to complete a group project. The project strayed from the traditional paper and pencil test or written report that has been the norm prior to the influx of technology. The students were able to demonstrate understanding of the Declaration of Independence and its meaning by creating their own declaration. Student understanding was shown by the groups of students by developing a script and creating video clips. The clips were edited and put together with the use of iMovie. The teacher used a rubric to assess the completed project. For this example, the teacher not only assessed the project that used technology, but also used technology to collect data from students to show their individual understanding. Teacher BB (English teacher) noted she was extremely proud of the work her students had done on this project. She felt the students exhibited an understanding of the requirements of the project as well as showed individuality and uniqueness in completing it. During the observation of Teacher FF (English teacher), student learning was assessed as students completed a grammar check using the interactive whiteboard. Students went to the board to make corrections to the sentence that was projected on the board. Corrections were made with immediate feedback being provided for all to see.

118

During the first observation, a note was documented regarding student behavior. Some students were not focused on the board. A student made an inappropriate comment about the beverage he was drinking. The teacher addressed the comment and proceeded with class. The teacher was attentive to student behavior, as well as the use of technology. Also noted during this observation was a vote by the class to not use the interactive board. The students wanted to discuss the information as opposed to using the technology to document the information for all to see. During the second observation, the activities observed became the discussions of an ethical dilemma and answers to a quiz. Students verbally discussed their decision as to how they would act if they were faced with the ethical dilemma. Students also conversed about the correctness of quiz responses. The teacher assessed student responses during the discussion. When asked the reason for the activity to be completed as it was, the teacher felt that face to face dialogue among the students was more beneficial for the students. He noted he could have utilized an online discussion so that technology could have been used. Teacher FF (English teacher) stated that he was not sure if it would have enhanced student learning. While conducting the second observation of Teacher EE, the teacher assessed student work for the majority of the eighty-minute block. The objective of the day was to construct a thesis sentence by answering the following essential question - How do I write an effective thesis statement? After projecting an example of the thesis sentence to the class, the students developed a thesis sentence then located statements to support the

119

sentence using the electric library. Students accessed the teacher's blog on her school webpage. They left comments and questions on the teacher's site. During the first observation of Teacher EE, teacher observation of student work was used as a form of assessment. The teacher provided immediate feedback. No technology was needed to provide feedback. Teacher CC (science teacher) liked to employ a drop box style of question projected on the interactive board as her technological "Ticket Out the Door." This activity was observed during her first observation. During the interview Teacher CC indicated she gathers this data to determine who was getting what answers correct and who was getting the answers wrong. This information also helped to determine if material needed to be re-taught. This particular science teacher could be considered the most statistically minded teacher of the group studied, as she provided the most information regarding using technology to assess student progress. Teacher AA (science teacher) was the only teacher not observed using technology to evaluate student learning during the observations. The students in the Physical Science class were building websites that would eventually be evaluated for the understanding of subject content by the teacher. During the class the teacher was either correcting technical difficulties or attending to student behaviors. Since the teacher's focus was not on the students, off task behavior was observed. The students were engaged in conversations unrelated to the webpage project that was completed over a two (2) day period. The teacher was engaged in updating his website so that students could gain access to the site in order for the

120

projects to be completed. This observation would indicate technology does not prevent students' off task behaviors. One student threw a pencil to anther student. The teacher asked another student to leave the classroom and work in the hallway. The teacher did not circulate about the class to observe student progress nor at any time did the teacher verbally ask the class if the students were progressing toward a completed project. According to CFF (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2006), student engagement and time on task would increase. If student behavior was being assessed to determine student engagement and time on task, this observation did not support the claim of CFF. Conclusion The overall consensus of the six (6) participants was the Classrooms For the Future initiative had little effect on their instructional strategies or their teaching philosophies. Since the district received grant money to participate in the program, the teachers were required to participate in CFF. Most of the teachers interviewed indicated that they would have participated in Classrooms For the Future without the requirement. The teachers provided no information during the interview process that indicated their instructional philosophies had changed as a result of participation in the CFF imitative. During the interviews, none of the teachers mentioned CFF as a reason they have integrated technology into their lessons or changed instructional strategies. More specifically unless CFF was mentioned by the interviewer, the teachers did not mention the program. When the teachers did make reference to CFF courses or the program, the majority of the comments were negative. One example of the unenthusiastic opinion was

121

Teacher BB's comment that the courses were a "waste to time." Another comment from Teacher EE expressed her disdain of the courses by indicating they were redundant and a waste of time. The only positive benefit of CFF according to the teachers was the district acquired additional technology hardware such as polyvision boards, classroom sets of laptops, cameras, and projectors. The study participants have responded favorably to the newly acquired technology by using the hardware to provide instruction to their students. This additional hardware has helped some teachers. For others, such as Teacher BB, the lack of access to the technology is still a concern for her. Several times during her interview, she expressed her dismay about having to plan to use technology several weeks in advance. She explained she loses opportunities to seize teachable moments. The goal of the educator when using technology was for technology to become an "extension of self' and be seamlessly integrated it into everyday their teaching repertoire. The end result when using technology is that of students accepting the responsibility for their own learning (Goos, 2005). After interviewing the participants, reviewing self-

rating surveys, and observing the teachers in action, it appeared the teachers were using technology as a pedagogical tool with varying degrees of success. The participants were providing activities which were more engaging for the students. Some students took responsibility for their own learning while others were not engaged in the activities using technology. This is supported by the Declaration of Independence project completed by the students in Teacher BB's class. The students were proud of the finished products and

122

eager to show off their masterpieces during the observation of the English teacher. Another example of students taking responsibility for learning are the students in Teacher AA's science class creating the webpage about an energy source. In this situation, classroom management was lacking so some students did not meet expectations of the teacher on this day. Student engagement was achieved by most of the teachers when using technology. Unfortunately for Teacher AA, the students were not fully engaged instead opting to exhibit off-task behaviors. Teacher BB and EE listed classroom management as a requirement when conducting a class. Teacher FF demonstrated his classroom management skills by addressing an inappropriate comment. It appeared classroom management skills were more effective to keep students engaged than the use of technology. Through their words and actions this group of participating educators has integrated technology because it has been perceived to enhance student learning. They stated or showed this effort with the use of technology during the observed lessons. The teachers explained their use is because they want to employ pedagogy which would be considered current best teaching practices. No courses were needed for them to understand that technology was integral in today's classroom. They knew part of their professional responsibility was to continue to learn. This focus on life-long learning was demonstrated by their participation in the classes offered by the district to learn about the technology that was available.

123

In the literature review, support in the forms of technology hardware and software use, as well as the fixing technical glitches was reported as a reason teachers decide to use technology in the classroom. All participants reported satisfaction for the district's support provided to the teachers. The summer academy offerings provided as part of the staff development program assisted the teacher to learn about new hardware and software. The teachers are provided with the needed instruction and time to use the technology. The instructors of the academies helped teachers to determine the best uses for the technology in their classroom. Being providing the time to explore the technology was appreciated by the teachers as they could ask questions if they had difficulties while working "hands on" with the technology. The Instructional Advisors provided as part of the district's technology department helped the teachers during the school year and this effort is another indication the district understands support is essential if technology is to be implemented. Knowing assistance was available allowed the teachers to continuously integrate technology throughout the year. Teachers did not become stagnant in their quest to implement new uses for technology. The IAs not only showed teachers new instructional uses for technology, this group help to resolve technical issues. The IAs helped to keep the hardware and software functioning for the teacher. The Help Desk was another service provided by the district to help teachers deal with non-functioning or faulty technology. Two of the participants referenced or were observed using this service during the interview or observations

124

The assessment of student achievement was an area that the teachers provided limited data. The teachers used technology to teach, but only Teacher CC referenced technology's capabilities to determine if students have showed positive gains. Teacher CC used technology to collect data regarding students' understanding of concepts. This was done through her use of software that allowed her to create an electronic ticket out the door. Teacher CC also used the results to teach her student to conduct an error analysis. Six teachers reported assigning student projects that required technology to demonstrate student understanding of concepts. The use of technology brought mixed concerns. Teacher FF was concerned about doing the students a disservice as he did not assess their ability to use technology as he focused on their ability to show an understanding of English standards. Teacher DD related that not all students liked to use technology. She allowed her students the choice of whether to use technology to demonstrate an understanding of mathematics concepts. If CFF courses were effective, teachers would have been able to report relevant data through the courses regarding student progress. Even if the teachers did not use technology to collect data, at least one of the educators should have relayed information from CFF about using technology to collect data. This did not occur. The much needed data which could have furthered the project was left un-mined. Finally, technology is a tool to be utilized to enhance student learning. According to this group of teachers, it can not be a substitute for an actual person directing a lesson. Knowing and teaching the content was more essential than the use of technology. This

125

group agrees technology was secondary in the classroom to an effective teacher. This was emphatically stated during the interview of Teacher EE. The a comment by Teacher DD would summarize the beliefs of this group of educators as they prepare students for life after high school, "21st century learning is not about technology, it is about integration." This group understands the importance of teaching students the skills of problem solving, mathematics, writing, and ability to research. Technology can assist in teaching these skills.

126

Chapter Five Discussion The purpose of this study was to answer three research questions related to high school teachers' perceptions toward the integration of instructional technology. Specifically, it examined teachers perceptions related to the integration of Classrooms For the Future, a technology initiative put forth by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The study examined the perceptions related to the integration of instructional technology, changes in instructional practices, and the influence technology has had on students. This case study used mixed methodology to analyze data generated from six (6) teachers during the spring semester of the 2008 - 2009 school year. Responses given as part of the interview process and survey were analyzed qualitatively. Behaviors observed during the observations were also analyzed qualitatively. Quantitative data collected using the Demographic Survey and Technology Competency and Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric provided information as to the time technology was utilized during the observations. This tool was also utilized to determine the teacher's self-rating to determine usage of technology and beliefs. After an analysis of the results and the observations, the research question was answered. Summary of the Results The responses to the three research questions posed by this study did not support the Classrooms For the Future claims to increase attendance, student engagement, time spent on task, assignment completion, and course rigor. The first question pertaining to how teacher's perceptions (attitudes) toward instructional technology have changed as a

127

result of the implementation of the Classrooms For the Future initiative, helped to determine through responses that teachers perceptions have not changed as a result of the implementation of this program. All of the teachers began their teaching careers prior to the Classrooms For the Future initiative. Therefore, all of the teachers knew the potential impact of technology's hardware and software programs prior the implementation of CFF. All of the teachers confirmed employing technology as an instructional tool prior to the district's implementation of the Classrooms For the Future initiative. The goal of the Classrooms For the Future initiative was for teachers to facilitate a classroom that is student-centered. The first reason was teaching style. Two (2) of the teachers self-reported having a classroom that was student-centered. Two other educators have a classroom that was a blend of student-centered and teacher-centered instructional approaches. The two remaining teachers reported using lessons that are teacher-centered. If teachers were subscribing to the thinking of CFF, then all teachers would report their change in teaching philosophies from teacher-centered to student-centered. This information would also be substantiated through the observation process. This study has not supported this conclusion. Instead, if one were to examine teacher use of technology and the standards set forth by ISTE (2008) as presented in Chapter 2, one could say the teachers of this study have facilitated and inspired student learning and creativity, and modeled digital-age work and learning. This group of educators has designed and developed digital-age learning experiences, as well but need to continue to develop assessment strategies using technology. The teachers selected activities that met the objective of their lessons. The

128

activities may or may not involve the use of technology. Technology was not utilized just because of the implementation of the Classrooms For the Future initiative. The literature review indicated that teachers' lack of confidence was a reason that teachers do not use technology. The responses of the teacher on the Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey indicated that teachers felt they are capable of using technology. The teachers self-reported they were confident using technology. During the observations, the teachers appeared to be confident when using technology. The information therefore gleaned from this study does not support this assertion. Within the classroom, the use of technology has changed due to new technology being introduced and learned by the teachers. As teachers learned to integrate the technology through staff development offerings, they employed it to meet the needs of their students and the objectives of the lesson. This changed how the class was conducted. Also, as one teacher noted that as more teaching experience is gained, the shift from teacher-centered to student-centered will occur. The NETS-T standards (ISTE, 2008) address professional growth in one (1) of the five (5) standards. These teachers took the opportunity to increase technology skills through staff development offerings and assistance provided by the district's Instructional Advisors. The educators involved in this study credited the district for its support and availability of Instructional Advisors to assist in implementing technology. The general consensus of the six teachers was the courses offered by CFF were of little to no value. The teachers found the district's staff development offerings provided a variety of courses about software and hardware. The courses provide instruction to the teachers

129

regarding the strategies in which to use technology, as well as time to learn the technology, support it, and implement it. In responses given during the interviews, teachers noted that teacher education and knowledge of the curriculum was of utmost importance. Also, the teachers noted skills, other than ones focusing on technology, were more important when teaching a classroom full of students. Another reason that was provided for the decision to use technology was the subject being taught. It was noted by the mathematics and science teachers that at times, in their opinion, the subject being taught and technology were not compatible. Out of all of the participants, the mathematics teachers stressed this point the most. Question Two addressed the change in teacher instructional practices. Again, teachers noted that the Classrooms For the Future initiative mandated courses were not helpful when implementing new hardware or software within the classroom. These courses were much more philosophical and less about using the technology. Nor did the teachers seek the assistance of the CFF coach when implementing new hardware or software. The district's summer academy offerings and availability of Instructional Advisors were most beneficial in changing teaching practices. The teachers found the district's assistance as more of a reason to change instructional practices and incorporate more technology into instruction, than the CFF program and its coach. In reviewing the research, one must wonder the reason that CFF did not provide more hands on training or assistance to the teachers. According to Forgasz (2006) and Ertmer (1999), professional development, administrative and technical support were

130

factors that contributed to the use of technology. The lack of support along with the poorly planned courses led to the dismay of the teachers involved in the CFF program. On the other hand, the district received praises for its staff development offered to the teachers, which dealt much more with strategies needed to implement the technology. Teachers indicated through the interview process that technology should not be used soley because it was available. It was a tool that should neither be used as a substitute for the teacher. It was a tool that could enhance student learning when used correctly. The third and final question deals with teachers' perception as to the influence of the Classrooms For the Future initiative on students. After answering the first two research questions, it would be difficult to report that the teachers felt the Classrooms For the Future initiative, had a substantial influence on their students. First, the teachers provided limited data related to student achievement. Only one of the teachers reported using the technology to assess student learning, which in turn would alter the presentation of lessons. As for student behavior, teachers' skills were still of primary importance when dealing with classroom management issues. Observations provided supportive documentation. If students were supposed to be on task when using technology thus eliminating behavioral concerns, then the observed students' off task behaviors would not have been observed. The teachers who were attentive to students' behavior had little behavioral concerns. The claims by CFF of how the use of technology influenced student learning and behavior was less than realistic and thought to be misleading. The question

131

must be asked if the claim by PDE (2006) that CFF and the use of technology increase student engagement, time spent on task, and assignment completion was false. The observations completed as part of this study indicate technology did not increase student engagement. The factor that did lead to less disruptive student behaviors was teachers who are attentive to the classroom environment. The responses and observations of the teachers do not support that the Classrooms For the Future initiative has changed teacher attitudes toward technology as compared to the attitudes of the teachers prior to the program's implementation. The teachers continued to select activities according to the concept being taught, rather than working diligently to incorporate technology into their everyday pedagogy. Teachers' stated beliefs and instructional practices were similar. Since two teachers were selected from each of the top three technology tiers according to the district's Technology Level tiers, a teachers' technology tier classification appeared to have little affect a teacher's view. This therefore indicates a teacher's belief system regarding student learning plays more of a role in determining the use of technology than CFF training or their expertise with using technology. Overall, the analysis of the qualitative data did not indicate CFF had influenced teachers' beliefs. The teachers indicated through words and actions their attitudes had not changed as a result of the of the Classrooms For the Future initiative or its courses. The teachers feel their perceptions toward instructional technology had changed as technology changes and new technology was introduced. As new technology was presented to this group of teachers through their own learning and the presentation of

132

instructional advisors, they searched more for teaching strategies that would be consistent with best practices. This group continued to focus on teaching their assigned content and used technology to enrich student learning as suggested by Irving and Bell (2004). Limitations Found in the Study Various situations led to limitations in the data collection portion if this study. Although six teachers who participated possessed a wide range of experience and expertise related to teaching and technology, only three curricular areas were represented. As noted previously, teacher use of technology is influenced by the subject he/she teaches and their pre-espoused views of education. Since the Demographic Survey and Technology Competency depended on teacher self reporting, teachers could have provided inflated answers. A concern was noted during one of the observation that students were not engaged in the lesson and spent time off-task. This teacher did not indicate any classroom control issues existed during the interview. This teacher may possess an inaccurate picture of his classroom management techniques. Since technology was not available to all the teachers consistently, teacher attitudes towards its use may have swayed responses because of the limited access. The teachers that did not have daily access to laptops and other technology did provide comments of concern about its availability. The lack of availability of technology was noted as a factor for not using technology by Ertmer (1999), Forgasz (2006), and Goos (2005).

133

According to of the Classrooms For the Future initiative, implementation will increase attendance, student engagement, time spent on task, assignment completion, and course rigor. The expectation was that a successful implementation of the program would see decreases in disruptions in the classroom, drop-outs, and overall drop in inappropriate student behaviors. Teachers did not have the data nor had they kept the statistics regarding these claims. The information collected on these assertions, was based mostly on teachers' perceptions. Generalizability This study can not be generalized to the general population as it is only a snapshot of six teachers who teach in one district located in Pennsylvania. It can however provide framework for future study. Value of the Qualitative Approach This study makes a significant contribution to the area of technology education and teacher perceptions regarding the use of technology within the educational setting. While the study is small in size and therefore may not be generalized to the overall population, the procedures used in this study were designed for internal validity as: (1) the selection of the study participants was done with a minimum of influence from the researcher. After the initial discussions with building administrators providing names of possible participants, the researcher met with the teachers and allowed them to decide if participation would occur or not. The very small population size of the participants which was a cross section of teachers in terms of years experience and curriculum taught resulted in the sample for the study being the population of the study. (2) The interview

134

questions were designed to allow the participants sufficient autonomy to comment regarding the Classrooms For the Future initiative and the district's implementation of technology. Questions were specific in subjects, but general in regard to specifics to each program in order to avoid researcher bias in the process. (3) All interviews were reviewed and transcribed to assure accuracy of the interviews. (4) Finally, the researcher brought enough prior knowledge regarding instructional technology to the study to allow the researcher to be satisfied with results of the study. The data collected as part of this research can be helpful to Classrooms for the Future initiative. The data supports other research in that staff development and support are critical when implementing technology. Also, as indicated by Martin and Shulman (2006) and Goos (2005) attitudes of educators contribute to whether technology will be used effectively as an instructional tool. Teachers' beliefs can influence whether or not technology will be used by a teacher as a teacher's master, servant, partner or extension of self (Goos 2005). Recommendations of Future Research The final conclusion of the researcher in regard to the method utilized to discover the data in this study indicates the qualitative case study method utilized allowed data to arise in settings that were natural and realistic. It is the hope of the researcher that future qualitative research may address any questions not fully answered in the study. With new technology being introduced on a daily basis, educational uses for this technology are being developed on a daily basis as well. The new educational uses of technology may or may not improve student achievement. It may be more beneficial for educators to know

135

if technology is indeed beneficial to student learning. Future research should investigate the changes in student behavior, such as student engagement, student participation, student attendance, and disruptive behaviors. Collection of this data may help to determine if the proper use of technology does increase student achievement. Further study should be completed in the area of staff development and technical support. The participating teachers who all described themselves as confident when using technology were complimentary of the district's trainings and support. Other teachers may have adverse feelings regarding the offered trainings and technical support. When examining the research questions, further investigation is suggested for each question as this study just scratched the surface of the ever changing realm of education and technology. When examining the perceptions of teachers, teachers of all curricular areas should be observed and interviewed. Teacher attitudes toward education must be differentiated first, and then taken in light of the impact of technology. Conclusion Reviewing information found in the Horizon Report, K-12 Edition (2009) Collaboration Environments, Online Communication, Mobiles, Cloud Computing, Smart Objects, and the Personal Web are asserted as being technologies that will emerge onto the secondary school educational settings within the next five (5) years. High school educators will need to continue to embrace technology in the classroom. To be reactionary in technology implementation, school districts may find themselves in poor situational scenarios, thus resulting in negative teacher perceptions. School districts need to be proactive in their approached to technology implementation. They can not rely on a

136

state or federally funded programs that attempt to provide instruction for the masses. Programs that provide specific instruction along with time and support to learn and utilize the technologies appeared to be more beneficial to teachers, and subsequently to the student learners.. The Horizon Report states "the way we think of learning environment is changing. Educators need to keep this in mind as they continue to plan and move forward in the 21st century and empower students to be global learners." (Johnson, Levine, et. al. 2009). In conclusion, as educators we need to provide instruction that infuses technology into lessons, yet provide activities that will best enable a student to learn. A delicate blend of old and new must be employed by educators as we move further into the 21st century.

137

References Assiri, Mofarih Ahmed (2003) Exploring the attitudes and practices of northwest Arkansas high school mathematics teachers regarding technology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, United States ~ Arkansas. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3097296). Becker, H.& Riel, M., Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, I., & Minnesota Univ., M. (2000, December 1). Teacher Professional Engagement and Constructivist-Compatible Computer Use. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey. Report #7. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449785) Retrieved October 13, 2008, from ERIC database. Brinkerhoff, J., Ku, H., Glazewaski, K., & Brush, T. (2002). Development Results and Validations of Technology Integrations Surveys for Preservice and Practicing Teachers. Paper resented at the annual meeting for the Association of Educational Communications and Technology Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved from September 6, 2008 from http://pt3.ed.asu.edu/docs/AECT2001_technology_survey.doc Burke, G. (2001, January 1). Computers and Calculators in Schools: A Status Report.. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED460857) Retrieved November 23, 2008, from ERIC database. Congress of the U.S. (1994, September 28). Improving America's Schools Act, Conference Report (To Accompany H.R. 6). House of Representatives, 103D

138

Congress, 2d Session. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED3 86266) Retrieved February 4, 2009, from ERIC database. Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005,). A Retrospective of Twenty Years of Education Technology Policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-307. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ722453) Retrieved August 15, 2008, from ERIC database. US Department of Education. (1999, January 1). Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999: An Overview of the Clinton Administration's Proposal To Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED427440) Retrieved February 4, 2009, from ERIC database. Dillenbourg, P. (2008, August 1). Integrating Technologies into Educational Ecosystems. Distance Education, 29(2), 127-140. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ801003) Retrieved October 1, 2008, from ERIC database. Dunlap, C. (2002, June 1). Effective Technology Integration: A Plan for Professional Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED473018) Retrieved September 6, 2008, from ERIC database. Ertmer, P. (2005, October). Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration?. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 25-39. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from Education Research Complete database.

139

Ertmer, P., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. (2001, January 1). Technology-Using Teachers: Comparing Perceptions of Exemplary Technology Use to Best Practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ635498) Retrieved October 1, 2008, from ERIC database. Ertmer, P. (1999, January 1). Addressing First- and Second-Order Barriers to Change: Strategies for Technology Integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(A), 47-61. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ603729) Retrieved October 1, 2008, from ERIC database. Forgasz, H. (2006, January 1). Factors That Encourage or Inhibit Computer Use for Secondary Mathematics Teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(1), 77-93. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ724761) Retrieved October 26, 2008, from ERIC database. Ferguson, P. (2004, October 1). Faculty Beliefs about Teaching with Technology. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED485069) Retrieved September 6, 2008, from ERIC database. Gall, M., Gall, J, & Borg, W. (2003). Educational Research An Introduction. New York: Allyn and Bacon. Goos, M. (2005, February 1). A Sociocultural Analysis of the Development of PreService and Beginning Teachers' Pedagogical Identities as Users of Technology. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(1), 35-59. (ERIC Document

140

Reproduction Service No. EJ735616) Retrieved October 26, 2008, from ERIC database. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P. & Geiger, P. (2001). Promoting Collaborative Inquiry in Technology Enriched Mathematics Classrooms. Paper presented at 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Research Association. (ERIC Document No. ED454055). Paper retrieved April 9, 2007 from ERIC database. Grabe, M & Grabe, C. (1996) Integrating technology for meaningful learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008, January 1). A Framework for Addressing Challenges to Classroom Technology Use. AACE Journal, 16( 1), 21-46. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ805720) Retrieved October 1, 2008, from ERIC database. Harvey, F., & Charnitski, C. (1998, February 1). Improving Mathematics Instruction Using Technology: A Vygotskian Perspective. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423837) Retrieved November 23, 2008, from ERIC database. International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for English Language Arts. Author. Retrieved January 28, 2009 from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Books/Sample/ StandardsDoc.pdf International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). The ISTE National Educational Technology Standards (NETS-T) and Performance Indicators for

141

Teachers. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://www.iste.org/Content/ NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_T_Standards_Final. pdf International Society for Technology in Education. (2007, February 5) ISTE Says President's Proposed Budget Fails American Students. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Press%20Releases &CONTENTID=l 5986 Irving, K., & Bell, R. (2004, June 1). Double Visions: Educational Technology in Standards and Assessments for Science and Mathematics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 255-266. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ744841) Retrieved October 26, 2008, from ERIC database. Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Smythe, T., (2009). The Horizon Report: K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas; The new Media Consortium. Judson, E. (2006, July 1). How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs About Learning: Is There a Connection?. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ729639) Retrieved November 23, 2008, from ERIC database. Knezek, G. & Christinesen, R. (1996). Validating the Computer Attitude Questionnaire (CAQ). Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document No. ED 398 243). Retrieved February 11, 2007, from the ERIC database.

142

Lawrenz, F., Gravely, A., & Ooms, A. (2006, March 1). Perceived Helpfulness and Amount of Use of Technology in Science and Mathematics Classes at Different Grade Levels. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3),. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ751990) Retrieved November 23, 2008, from ERIC database. Levine, E., & Wasmuth, V. (2004, February 1). Laptops, Technology, and Algebra 1: A Case Study of an Experiment. Mathematics Teacher, 97(2),. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ717687) Retrieved November 23, 2008, from ERIC database. Machemer, J (2008). West Shore School District October 27, 2008 Martin, W., & Shulman, S.. (2006, September 1). Impact of Intel Teach Essentials on Teachers' Instructional Practices and Uses of Technology. Center for Children and Technology, Education Development Center, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED495087) Retrieved October 26, 2008, from ERIC database. Metiri Group. (2008). Pennsylvania Technology Inventory, Capital Area IU15: 2007 2008. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from http://pati.metiri.com/ reports/PA08 IU15.pdf Monaghan, J. (2004, September 1). Teachers' Activities in Technology-Based Mathematics Lessons. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 327-357. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ748341) Retrieved August 4, 2008, from ERIC database.

143

National Center for Education Statistics. (March 2005). Issue Brief: Computer Technology in the Public School classroom: Teacher Perspectives. Retrieved

September 7, 2008 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005083.pdf North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (2004). Pathways Home: Zone of Proximal Development. Retrieved January 28, 2009 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/ students/learning/lr 1 zpda.htm National Council for Social Studies. (2002). National Standards for Social Studies Teachers. Retrieved January 28, 2009 from http://downloads.ncss.org/NCSSTeacherStandardsVoll-rev2004.pdf National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). A vision for school mathematics (chap. 1). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Retrieved July 2, 2007, from http://standards.nctm.org/document/chapterl/index.htm Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pennsylvania Department of Education, (n.d.). Classrooms for the future: 2008 - 2009 Final Expenditure Reports. Retrieved June 2, 2009, from

http://www.pde.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/grant_information/691 Pennsylvania Department of Education, (n.d.). Classrooms for the future: Setting the stage. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/ed_tech/cwp/ view.asp?a-169&q=l 18835 Pennsylvania Department of Education, (n.d.). Classrooms for the future: frequently asked questions. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://www.pdenewsroom.

144

state.pa.us/newsroom/lib/newsroom/FAQ_Classrooms_For_The_Future_-_200602-07.pdf Pennsylvania Department of Education, (n.d.). Classrooms for the future guidelines. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/ed_tech/cwp/ view.asp?a =169&q=l 18849 Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2006). Governor Rendell's 2006-07 budget launches $200 million initiative to create classrooms for the future: A laptop on every high school desk . Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://www. pdene wsroom. state.pa.us/ne wsroom /lib/newsroom/ Classrooms_for_the_Future_-_2006-02-07.pdf Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2003). Pennsylvania system of school assessment (pssa) reading and mathematics school-by-school performance levels results. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_ t/cwp/ view.asp?a =3&q=95217 Reynolds, D., Treharne, D., & Tripp, H. (2003, January 1). ICT-The Hopes and the Reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 151-67. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ666631) Retrieved October 26, 2008, from ERIC database. Schetz, K., & Stremmel, A. (1994, January 1). Teacher-Assisted Computer Implementation: A Vygotskian Perspective. Early Education and Development, 5(1), 18-26. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ476462) Retrieved February 4, 2009, from ERIC database.

145

SchoolMatters. (2008). West Shore School District. Retrieved January 31, 2008 from http ://www. schoolmatters .com/schools. aspx/q/page=sr/txt=West$ sp; Shore/ust=P A/p=l/fp=l Suharwoto, G., & Lee, K. (2005, March 1). Assembling the Pieces Together: What Are the Most Influential Components in Mathematics Preservice Teachers' Development of Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)?. Online Submission, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490649) Retrieved November 23, 2008, from ERIC database. US Department of Education. (1999, January 1). Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999: An Overview of the Clinton Administration's Proposal To Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED427440) Retrieved February 4, 2009, from ERIC database. Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the Development of Children's Action: A Theory of Human Development (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Wiley and Sons. Waits, B., & Demana, F. (2001). Calculators in mathematics teaching and learning: Past, present, and future. Part 2: technology and the mathematics classroom. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (ERIC Document No. ED482731). Retrieved May 15, 2008 from ERIC database. West Shore School District (2007). Annual Report to the Community. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from http://www.wssd.k 12.pa.us/files/filesystem/ AnnualRep2007.pdf

146

West Shore School District (2008). West Shore School District Technology Plan. United States Department of Education (May, 2006) Archived Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology Program. Retrieved February 4, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/ programs/teachtech /index.html

147

Appendix A Letter from Superintendent

Jemry L Small, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools

February 27, 2009

Miss Karen S. Hertzler 90 Cragmoor Road York Haven, PA 17370 Dear Miss Hertzler: I am pleased to grant you approval to conduct your doctoral study i s our District Your research should prove invaluable as we continue to implement technology into our lessons. I have been assured that you will have all participants sign off on consent forms and maintain confidentiality of all responses received through both the data collection and interviews. Best wishes to you as you work through your dissertation. I look forward to receiving a copy of the finished study. As always, I am available to assist in any way I can. Sincerely yours,

gemry L. Small, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools

JS/pg

148

Appendix Letter to Teachers

90 Cragmoor Road York Haven, PA 17370 717.266.8455 Rentakar3 @comcast.net

January 2009 Dear High School Teacher: I hope you are enjoying your school year. My name is Karen Hertzler. I am the Principal of New Cumberland Middle School. I am working on my Doctorate degree through Widener University. I have been granted permission by the district to conduct my dissertation study within the high schools of the West Shore School District. I am hoping you would be willing to participate in the study, which will take place from February to June of this current school year. The study will investigate teachers' perceptions toward the integration of instructional technology in the classroom. Participating teachers will be asked to complete a demographic survey, be observed conducting a lesson using instructional technology, and be interviewed about their perceptions of technology. Opting to participate in the study would require minimal effort on your part. You would be asked to complete a survey regarding demographic information. A classroom observation will be conducted to assess use of technology within the classroom. This observation would not be a formal observation nor be associated with your rating. The final part of the data collection would be to participate in an interview. This interview would last approximately one (1) hour. All information will remain confidential. More information is contained in the Informed Consent that is included with this letter. The Informed Consent must be signed and returned to me if you are willing to participate. If you would like more information or would be willing to participate, please contact me at New Cumberland Middle School or email me at the above email address or my district address at Khertzler@wssd.kl2 ,pa.us and return the Informed Consent in the provided envelope. I am hoping you would please consider participating. I appreciate your time and consideration. Sincerely,

Karen S. Hertzler

149

Appendix Demographic Survey

Section I - Demographic Information Part 1 - Demographic Information Name: Directions: Please complete the following questions: 1. What classes do you teach? A. B. C. 2. How many years have you been a teacher? A. B. C. D. E. 3. 2 years or less between 3 and 5 years between 6 and 10 years between 11 and 15 years greater than 15 years

What is your gender? A. Male B. Female What is your age? A. 25 or less B. between 26 and 35 C. between 36 and 45 D. between 46 and 55 E. greater than 55

4.

5. According the District Technology Tiers, how do you rank yourself? A. Tier 1 B. Tier 2 C. Tier 3 D. Tier 4 E. Tier 5 6. What is the average number of students in your classes in your school? A. 15 - 20 students per class B. 21 - 25 students per class C. 26 - 30 students per class D. more than 30

150

7. How often do you conduct lesson having the students use technology? A. Less than once a month B. About once a month C. About once a week D. Several times a week E. Never 8. How many computers are available in your classroom? A. 0 B. 1 C. 2 - 4 D. 5 or more 9. How often do you use technology to complete the responsibilities of your job? A. daily B. About once a month C. About once a week D. Several times a week E. Never 10. List the technology you utilize to teach lessons, (examples - polyvision board, digital camera) A. B. C.

11. List the programs you utilize to teach lessons, (examples - PowerPoint, Sketch Pad) A. B. C. D. 12. How often do you seek guidance from the CFF coach or Technology Instructional Advisor? A. Less than once a month B. About once a month C. About once a week D. Several times a week E. Never 13. How often do you use your computer at home? A. Less than once a month B. About once a month C. About once a week D. Several times a week E. I don't have a computer at home 14. Do you have access to the Internet at home? A. Yes B. No

151

Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey

Section IV - Technology Integration Directions for items 15-46: Below is a list of technology skills and competencies. For each item, please determine your skill level and mark the appropriate letter on the answer sheet. Use the key below to determine your response: KEY: A = I can't do this B = I can do this with some assistance C = I can do this independently D = I can teach others how to do this Basic Operation 15 Create, save, copy & delete files; move or copy files onto hard disks or floppy disks; find files on a hard disk or a floppy disk; create folders and move files between folders Print an entire document, selected pages, and / or the current page within a document Cut, paste, and copy information within and between documents Troubleshooting: When my computer freezes or an error message comes up, I can usually fix the problem Troubleshooting: I know the things to check if my computer doesn't turn on Viruses: I can use anti-virus software to check my computer for viruses 1 A B C

16 17 18 19 20

Productivity Software 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Word Processors: Use the functions of a word processor to format text (font colors and styles), check spelling / grammar Word Processors: Use advanced features of a word processor such as headers / footers, tables, insert pictures Spreadsheets: Use the basic functions of a spreadsheet to create column headings and enter data. Spreadsheets: Use advanced features of a spreadsheet (e.g. using formulas, sorting data, and creating charts / graphs) Presentation: Create a presentation using predefined templates Presentation: Create a presentation with graphics, transitions, animation, and hyperlinks Classroom Management: Use an electronic / computer grade book

A "

152

KEY: A = I can't do this B = I can do this with some assistance C = I can do this independently D = I can teach others how to do this Communication 28 29 30 Email: Send, receive, open, and read email. Email: Use advanced features of email (e.g. attachments, folders, address books, distribution lists) Listservs: Subscribe to and unsubscribe from a listserv A B C D

Electronic References 31 32 Searching: Use a search tool to perform a keyword / subject search in an electronic database (e.g. CD-ROM, library catalog) Use advanced features to search for information (e.g. subject search, search strings with Boolean operators, combining searches) World Wide Web 33 34 Navigate the WWW using a web browser (e.g. Netscape Navigator, Internet Explorer, AOL) Use more advanced features of a web browser (e.g. creating, organizing, and using bookmarks; opening multiple windows; using reload / refresh and stop buttons) Use advanced features of a web browser (e.g. install plug-ins, download files and programs, download images) Use a search engine (e.g. Yahoo, Lycos, Google) to search for information on the Web Use a web authoring tool (e.g. Netscape Composer or FrontPage) to create basic web pages with text and images Format web pages using tables, backgrounds, internal and external links Upload web page files to a server

35 36 37 38 39

153

KEY: A = I can't do this B = I can do this with some assistance C = I can do this independently D = I can teach others how to do this Multimedia 40 Drawing / Painting: Create simple shapes such as lines, circles, rectangles, and squares with a drawing program (e.g. Appleworks, Kidpix) Drawing / Painting: Use advanced features of a drawing program (e.g. layering, grouping objects, changing fill and outline colors) Authoring: Create and modify a simple multimedia product using an authoring tool such as HyperStudio Digital Images: Import a digital image (e.g. clip art, photograph) into a document Digital Images: Use various tools (e.g. digital camera, scanner) to capture a digital image Use a photo editing tool (e.g. Photoshop, PhotoDeluxe) to manipulate a digital image Desktop Publishing: Use desktop publishing software (e.g., Publisher, PageMaker) to create a newsletter, pamphlet, or award certificate A

41 42 43 44 45 46

154

Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey

Section IV - Technology Integration Directions for items 47-58: Below is a list of statements regarding technology. For each statement, please determine your level of agreement and mark the appropriate letter on the answer sheet. Use the key below to determine your response: KEY: A = Strongly Disagree B = Disagree C = Agree D = Strongly Agree Statement 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 I support the use of technology in the classroom. A variety of technologies are important for student learning. Incorporating technology into instruction helps students learn. Content knowledge should take priority over technology skills. Most students have so many other needs that technology use is a low priority. Student motivation increases when technology is integrated into the curriculum. Teaching students how to use technology isn't my job. There isn't enough time to incorporate technology into the curriculum. Technology helps teachers do things with their classes that they would not be able to do without it. Knowledge about technology will improve my teaching. Technology might interfere with "human" interactions between teachers and students. Technology facilitates the use of a wide variety of instructional strategies designed to maximize learning. A B C

155

Technology Beliefs and Competency Survey

Section IV - Technology Integration Directions for items 59-69: Below is a list of statements regarding technology. For each statement, please determine your level of agreement and mark the appropriate letter on the answer sheet. Use the key below to determine your response: KEY: A = Strongly Disagree B = Disagree C = Agree D = Strongly Agree Statement 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 I integrate computer activities into the curriculum. Technology plays an integral role in supporting content learning in my class. I encourage students to work collaboratively on technology-based activities. I locate and evaluate educational technologies including software, hardware and online resources for use with my students. I require students to use a variety of software tools and electronic resources to support learning. I use technology to support project- and problem-based learning activities in my classroom. I use technology in my classroom to help support the state curricular standards. I use technology to assist me with classroom management and recordkeeping activities (e.g., grading, attendance). Technology helps me meet the individual needs of a variety of students in my classroom. I encourage my students to use technology to demonstrate their knowledge of content in non-traditional ways (e.g. web sites, multimedia products). I use technology to design new learning experiences for students incorporating the unique capabilities of technology. A B C

69

Thank you for your time! I appreciate your assistance!

156

Appendix D Interview Questions

Background Information 1. How long have you used technology as an educator? 2. In what ways do you use technology? 3. How would you describe your classroom - teacher-centered or student-centered? Why?

Technology Skills 1. Where did you learn your technology skills? 2. What skills do you feel are essential to your job? Why? Technology Beliefs 1. Do you feel you receive the needed support when integrating technology? 2. Who do you contact when you have a technology concern? 3. Do you feel confident when using Technology? 4. Do you feel technology has been provided to you to use as you wish or has been forced upon you to use? Explain your response. 5. Do you feel you have been provided with ample time to learn the technology and its uses? Student Achievement 1. Do you feel student achievement and/or behavior improves as a result of the use of technology? Why? 2. Do you assess student achievement using technology vs not using technology? If so what have you found?

Additional Comments

157

Appendix E Technology Integration Scales: Scoring Rubric

The observation rubric below does not ask observers to rate quality of instruction, and a higher score on this form does not necessarily indicate a better lesson. The Integration Scales do not assume that a particular instructional emphasis (e.g., higher-order thinking skills or constructivism), pedagogical technique (e.g., cooperative learning or project based learning), or technology configuration (e.g., computer lab or activity centers) is superior. The rubric does assume that technology can be integrated into a wide variety of settings and that the attributes assessed by the scales may apply to any learning environment. Instructor names are recorded for purposes of relating observations to interviews and other data. All data will be reported by ISTE anonymously in aggregate form. A condensed version of this form, without item instructions and with space for notes, is available for use in recording during actual observations. Instructor: District/School: Main Focus of Lesson: Location: Classroom etc.) Other (describe): Computer lab Media center Public space (hall, cafeteria, Observer: Subject Area: Date: Grade:

1. During the lesson observed, what proportion of time was spent using technology? 1. Up to 25% or 14 minutes out of a 55-minute period 2. Up to 50% or 28 minutes out of a 55-minute period 3. Up to 75% or 41 minutes out of a 55-minute period 4. Up to 100% 2. When teaching with technology (as noted under question 1), what proportion of time was spent focused on the content of the lesson as opposed to teaching about the technology itself? Note that the percentages for this item relate to the time technology is in use, not to the length of the period. If web research takes up 30 minutes of a 55-minute period (item I scored "4 "), and 10 minutes of that time is used to explain how to find the browser software and enter a URL, this item would be scored "3, " because two thirds (67%) of the technology-use time was actually spent on the lesson content. 1. 0% - 25% (More time spent on technology than on content. 2. 26% - 50% (More time spent on technology than on content. 3. 5 1 % - 7 5 % 4. 7 6 % - 100%

158

For items 1 and 2, observers may find it useful to track time by dividing a period up into 3-minute intervals and checking off the presence of technology use and content focus within each interval. 3. How essential was the technology to the content of the lesson? Note: This question is a control on question 1, which relates primarily to duration of technology use. Computers may be usedfrequently but for trivial tasks (e.g., games that are tangentially related to the content). On the other hand, technology may provide critical access to information (e.g., a timely e-mail message from a subject-matter expert), but be used for only a few minutes in a class period. This item should be scored independently of item 1. That is, even if an entire period is devoted to curriculum-related use of technology, in completing item 4, the observer should question to what extent that technology use was needed in the first place. 1. Technology use was irrelevant to the content. 2. The technology was moderately useful in teaching the content; other approaches might have been as effective. 3. The technology clearly enhanced the lesson content; other approaches would not have been as effective. 4. The technology was essential to the content; it would have been very difficult to present the lesson by 4. To what extent did the technology integrated by the instructor demonstrate the use of digital-based media systems? This question is related to item 3. A distinctive aspect of information technology is that digital data can flow across a variety of media, and essential uses of technology take advantage of this. Browsing for data on the Internet would be scored "2." Doing a computer writing activity in the same period would be scored "3." Taking numbers, images, or text from the Internet and incorporating that digitized data into the wordprocessed documents would be scored "4." 1. The instructor used traditional media systems only. 2. The instructor or students used at least one digital media system. 3. The instructor or students used more than one digital media system but did not share data between systems. 4. The instructor or students shared data across more than one digital system.

159

5. How proficient is the instructor with the technology used during the observation? Note: "Proficiency " here relates to technology use within the observation, not to the entire range ofpossible skills. If an instructor is presenting writing revision techniques and encounters no problems using the relevant editing features of a word processor, this item would be scored "3 " or "4, " even if the observer knows that the instructor is unfamiliar with some other capabilities of the software such as graphics or charting. Also note that scores of "2" or "4" require some opportunity (e.g., a student question, a technical problem) for the instructor to demonstrate knowledge beyond the regular conduct of the lesson. Thus the expected score for most instructors on this item would be "3." 1. The instructor was distracted by the use of the technology. 2. The instructor had minimal technical proficiency necessary to teach the lesson. The instructor could carry out the planned activities with the technology, but could not respond to student questions about other technical features, and could not vary from the planned procedure without encountering difficulty. 3. The instructor had adequate proficiency to teach the lesson. The instructor operated all equipment and software without difficulty and could help students with the technical skills necessary for them to do their work. 4. The instructor had more than adequate technical proficiency; could troubleshoot unexpected difficulties, and could adapt the lesson to different applications or to students of varying technical abilities.

6. How appropriate was the lesson for the students' level of skill with the applications used? Note: "Appropriate " relates to technology use within the observation, not to the entire range ofpossible skills. If students have the skills to complete the lesson activities in the planned time period, this item is scored "3 " or "4," even if the observer knows that the students lack other important technology proficiencies. If the lesson is entirely instructordirected (e.g., a PowerPoint presentation during which the students' interaction with technology is entirely passive), write "N/A" in the Notes box on the recording form. Item 6 will contribute no points to the overall Level of Integration score. 1. Student difficulties with the technology overshadowed the content. 2. Some instruction in the technology was necessary to complete the basic activities of the lesson. 3. Students had no difficulty with technology in the basic activities of the lesson, although some instruction in the technology was necessary to cope with unexpected computer events or previously unused software features. 4. Students had no difficulty with the basic lesson activities, and were able to resolve other technical issues on their own.

160

7. How appropriate were the technology infrastructure and support? Note: "Appropriate" relates to the lesson being observed. If a one-computer classroom or an outdated application is completely adequate for conducting the lesson, this item would be scored "3," even if the observer would feel more comfortable working in a more modern and better-equipped facility. Assumptions about infrastructure should be checked in post-observation interviews. For instance, if students seem to be having difficulty opening web pages, the observer might assume the problem lies with inadequate band width, but that hypothesis should be confirmed. 1. The technology was not adequate to conduct the lesson as planned; access was insufficient and the equipment and software did not have the required capacity or features. 2. The technology was minimally adequate to conduct the lesson. Some activities were constrained by insufficient access or lack of capacity or features in the hardware or software. 3. The technology was adequate for the class. The lesson observed was not constrained by infrastructure, even if extensions of the lesson to more complex tasks or different class configurations would require more or different hardware and software. 4. The quality of and access to technology was more than adequate to conduct the lesson. The technology infrastructure did not constrain the lesson and could accommodate extensions of the activity. Total Score (add items 1-7)

161

Note: The items on this page do not contribute to the integration score. They provide information on the instructional setting in order to put the technology use in context. 8. What technologies were used during the lesson? V Used by instructor + Used by students 1.
2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

9. What kinds of classroom organization were observed during the lesson when technology was in use? 1. Individual work 2. Pairs of students 3. Small groups (3+) 4. Whole class _ 5. Other: Note: Check all types of organization observed during the part of the lesson incorporating technology. 10. What instructor and student roles were observed during the lesson when technology was in use? V Role of instructor + Role of students 1 Lecturing (conveying information through talking or demonstration) 2. Interactive direction (posing questions and calling for answers) 3. Modeling (demonstrating a skill or behavior outside of a formal lecture) 4. Facilitating/coaching (providing advice or suggestions without directing the action) 5. Discussion participant (joining a dialog without directing the conversation) 6. Passive audience (watching or listening to a lecture) 7. Other (describe): Note: Check all teacher and student roles observed during the part of the lesson incorporating technology.

162

11. What kinds of learning activities were observed during the lesson when technology was in use? Note: The same activity may fall into several categories. Software may incorporate tutorials, simulations, and drill and practice. A student-led whole-web search might involve giving/receiving a presentation, research, analysis, and open-ended discussion. Check all activities that apply. 1. Creating presentations (written, oral, or multimedia reports) 2. Receiving presentations (whether delivered by people or technology) 3. Giving presentations (lectures, demonstrations, reports, etc.) _ 4. Research (online database searching, web quests, etc.) 5. Analysis of information (mapping, outlining, calculating, comparing, etc.) 6. Taking tests (online, or supported by calculators or other tools) 7. Drill and practice (Computer-Assisted Instruction, interactive worksheets, etc.) 8. Tutorials (computer-delivered instruction not covered by drill/practice) 9. Simulations (modeling, games such as SimCity or Oregon Trail) 10. Experimental procedure (data collection with science probes or web forms) 11. Open-ended discussion (Videoconference; Web search with discussion of results, etc.) 12. Other:

12. List any specific pedagogical strategies or systems employed during the lesson when technology was in use (e.g., Cooperative Learning, LFS Strategies, Direct Instruction, etc.):

10. Experimental procedure (data collection with science probes or web forms) 11. Open-ended discussion (Videoconference; Web search with discussion of results, etc.) 12. Other:

12. List any specific pedagogical strategies or systems employed during the lesson when technology was in use (e.g., Cooperative Learning, LFS Strategies, Direct Instruction, etc.):