MIXED METHOD STUDY: EXPLORING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN K-12 CLASSROOMS by Tonya R.

Laliberte A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Educational Leadership

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX July 2009

UMI Number: 3393486

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 3393486 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

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

 2009 by Tonya R. Laliberte ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iv ABSTRACT Successful implementation of educational technology is reliant upon constructivist teaching practices. Using technology in the classroom is a method used to make the shift from traditional methods of instruction to more constructive-compatible instruction. Methods of learning including technology integration are a relatively new mode of instruction. Change in educational practices is fundamental to overall student success. This mixed method study was designed to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools for active engagement among students. The study also examined what techniques and methods technologically proficient teachers use for active engagement among students, and examined the barriers associated with technology integration. Using a mixed questionnaire, data illustrated that teachers studied are in need of additional resources and professional development for effective and seamless integration of instructional technology into the curriculum to promote active engagement for students. Forty-eight elementary, intermediate, middle, and high school teachers in Keller, Texas completed the questionnaire. Data were analyzed using triangulation of holistic, qualitative, and quantitative data. Teachers who are comfortable using technology are more likely to integrate technology into their curriculum. Additionally, teachers who see added benefits and higher levels of student engagement are more apt to integrate technology frequently. Administrators should not overlook the teacher leaders within a building in its effort to improve student learning and achievement.

v DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my husband, Shannon, and my three children, Tristan, Cassie, and Christian. Without each of you pushing me through I never would have reached this point. From your pats on the back, tears shed with me, and sacrifices you made for me I am forever indebted to you. I love you and thank you! I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to Millie Harding and Norma Laliberte. Although we as a family mourn their loss, I celebrate knowing they are watching over me as I bring this journey to a close.

vi

vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation advisor and mentor, Dr. Gary Berg, for his continuous persistence in mentally challenging me beyond the realm of possibilities, at least in my mind. His insight, high academic standards, and constant questioning kept me on my toes and made me justify my thought process. I also appreciate the fact that he never gave up on me, regardless of the difficulties and roadblocks I encountered along the way. From deaths in the family to the birth of my third baby, Dr. Berg was there providing an encouraging word, never letting me quit. I am also extremely grateful to the other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Brenda Curry and Dr. Ron Myers for their dedication to the process. I am also very grateful for my random counterpart, Diane Podlewski. Without your help and processing on a daily basis this would not have come to fruition. I would also like to thank my colleagues for their willingness to provide insight to how they use technology in their classroom to engage students. It was very evident every one of you was willing to help in any way necessary. Without my esteemed colleagues, there would have been no data to collect. I would like to thank all of my soundboards throughout my campus for allowing me the opportunity to share my experiences with you. I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to my friend and cohort member, Lydia Massias, for her continued support through this process. I would like to extend my most sincere thanks and appreciation to my family for providing endless encouragement and support for this lengthy academic journey. I would like to thank my husband, Shannon Laliberte, for always supporting me and encouraging me to dig my heels in and get the dissertation done. You always gave me time to write

viii that paper, answer discussion questions, or just catch up. Without your assistance and dedication to holding the family together, this would never have been possible; I am forever indebted to you and I love you. Your thoughtfulness and processing moments have never gone unrecognized or unappreciated! I would also like to thank my children, Tristan, Cassie, and Christian for being my inspiration, always understanding when mommy had to work, and constant support and encouragement. Although you guys are smallyou are mighty! Knowing the completion of this academic milestone has affected us all, I feel confident that each of you sees the true value of education and I know that you understand that you do not have to have a 140 IQ to get here. Without the love and support you provided me through this journey, I would never have completed it. Tristan, may this be an example to you as envision your future plans and become the secondgeneration doctoral graduate. Cassie, for your candid spirit and being by my side throughout this entire process, we enjoyed many evenings of home makeover TV while mom worked. Christian, while you are really too small to really understand, know that your presence kept me going when things became extremely difficult. Lastly, I want to thank my parents, siblings, in-laws, and friends. To my dad, I think I have made you proud. To my mom, thank you for the many weeks and weekends that you gave up to come stay with the kids while I worked or attended residency. To my sister, Misty, for being my soundboard when things did not make sense. To my siblings, Rodney, Royce, Eric, and Crystal for their continuous support. I would also like to thank my in-laws, Beth and Gary Laliberte for always supporting me and treating me like one of your own and expressing your pride throughout this entire process.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................7 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................8 Background of the Problem ....................................................................................... 9 Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................11 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................13 Significance of the Study ......................................................................................... 14 Significance of the Study to Leadership ..................................................................14 Nature of the Study ..................................................................................................15 Overview of the Research Method................................................................. 16 Overview of the Design Appropriateness ......................................................17 Research Questions..................................................................................................19 Hypotheses............................................................................................................... 21 Theoretical Framework............................................................................................22 Constructivism ............................................................................................... 22 Teachers as Constructivists ............................................................................ 24 Behaviorism ................................................................................................... 25 Teachers as Behaviorists ................................................................................26 Definition of Terms..................................................................................................27 Assumptions.............................................................................................................28 Scope and Limitations..............................................................................................29

2 Delimitations............................................................................................................ 30 Summary .................................................................................................................. 32 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................34 Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals ..................................34 Historical Overview ................................................................................................. 35 Theoretical Framework............................................................................................36 Behaviorism ................................................................................................... 37 B. F. Skinners Contribution to Education.....................................................38 Constructivism ............................................................................................... 39 Methods of Technology Integration.........................................................................41 Behaviorists....................................................................................................41 Behaviorist Instructional Practices.................................................................42 Constructivist Instructional Practices.............................................................43 Advancements of Educational Technology .............................................................50 Alternative Learning Environments ...............................................................53 Impact of Technology Use on Learning.........................................................54 Technology Proficient Teachers ..............................................................................55 Active Engagement..................................................................................................57 Barriers to Technology Integration.......................................................................... 64 Gaps in the Literature...............................................................................................67 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 68 Summary .................................................................................................................. 72 CHAPTER 3: METHOD .........................................................................................73

3 Research Method and Design Appropriateness .......................................................74 Method ..................................................................................................................... 77 Research Questions..................................................................................................78 Hypotheses............................................................................................................... 80 Population ................................................................................................................81 Sampling Frame .......................................................................................................82 Qualitative Sampling......................................................................................83 Quantitative Sampling.................................................................................... 83 Informed Consent.....................................................................................................84 Confidentiality .........................................................................................................85 Geographic Location................................................................................................86 Data Collection ........................................................................................................86 Instrumentation ........................................................................................................87 Survey Instrument Development .............................................................................88 Validity and Reliability............................................................................................89 Pilot Study................................................................................................................90 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 91 Summary .................................................................................................................. 93 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS.........................................................................................94 Research Questions..................................................................................................95 Pilot Study................................................................................................................96 The Study: Technology in the Constructivist Classroom ........................................98 Position and Years Experience....................................................................... 98

4 Missing Data ..................................................................................................99 Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 100 Triangulation of the Data .............................................................................100 Study Findings .......................................................................................................101 Research Question 1..................................................................................... 103 Question 10 Qualitative Analysis.................................................................104 Question 10 Quantitative Analysis...............................................................106 Question 9 Qualitative Analysis...................................................................108 Question 9 Quantitative Analysis.................................................................109 Research Question 2..................................................................................... 110 Qualitative Analysis .....................................................................................110 Quantitative Analysis ................................................................................... 114 Research Question 3..................................................................................... 115 Qualitative Analysis .....................................................................................115 Quantitative Analysis ................................................................................... 117 Research Question 4..................................................................................... 122 Summary of Findings.............................................................................................124 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................128 Interpretations of the Data Results.........................................................................131 Conclusions and Interpretations............................................................................. 133 Implications for Leadership ...................................................................................135 Recommendations..................................................................................................138 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................140

5 Summary ................................................................................................................ 142 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................144 APPENDIX A: QUALITATIVE QUESTIONNAIREPRIOR TO PILOT STUDY ..................................................................................................................158 APPENDIX B: QUANTITATIVE SURVEYPRIOR TO PILOT STUDY ......162 APPENDIX C: SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSENT................................................167 APPENDIX D: REQUEST TO BUILDING PRINCIPALS FOR PARTICIPATION .................................................................................................169 APPENDIX E: PARTICIPATION REQUEST STAFF E-MAIL ......................... 171 APPENDIX F: NOTIFICATION OF PARTICIPATION..................................... 173 APPENDIX G: INFORMED CONSENT .............................................................175 APPENDIX H: LETTER CODING FOR SCHOOLS .......................................... 178 APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIREREVISED AFTER PILOT STUDY.......... 180 APPENDIX J: NOTIFICATION OF PILOT STUDY PARTICIPATION........... 190 APPENDIX K: RESEARCH QUESTION 1 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES .........................................................................................................192 APPENDIX L: RESEARCH QUESTION 2 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES .........................................................................................................198 APPENDIX M: RESEARCH QUESTION 3 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES .........................................................................................................204 APPENDIX N: SERVER SECURITY..................................................................223

6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Constructivist Practices.96 Table 2. Most Used Technology Type and Frequency..101 Table 3. Web-based Applications Types and Usage Report.117

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Distribution of participants per school...97 Figure 2.Themes and frequency of technology used...100 Figure 3.Themes and frequency of technology used at specified grade levels...100 Figure 4. Number of teachers who use specified tools108 Figure 5. Amount of technology training received......111 Figure 6. Number of computers in classrooms....112 Figure 7. Number of computers in classrooms at specified grade level..112 Figure 8. Percentage of assignments requiring technology tools....114 Figure 9. Percentage of assignments requiring technology tools at specified grade levels. ..114

8 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Technology integration into K-12 classrooms is integral to providing the education needed for the success of current-day students (Watson, 2007). Technology integration in the classroom is one way to begin an educational reform altering the way teachers teach and think. Teachers who understand the need to integrate technology typically have higher achieving students (Watson). Furthermore, it is important for teachers to know how to use technology as a tool to support the teaching and learning process (Hughes, 2008; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). Changing the way teachers think is the first step to reforming education in a movement from three ring binders to online resources (United States Department of Education, 2007). Teachers choose not to integrate technology into their curriculum for a variety of reasons, including a lack of professional development, lack of resources, and low comfort level (Fox, 2007). High-quality professional development is a necessity for successful integration, and can turn reluctant teachers into enthusiastic users of technology in the classroom (Fox; Hughes, 2008; Watson, 2007). The research explored how teachers utilize educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement for students of all ability levels. The research also explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the research explored barriers to technology implementation and specific pedagogical approaches associated with implementation. Chapter 1 begins with an introduction of the background of the problem and the problem statement, followed by a discussion of the purpose, significance, and nature of the study. The research questions and hypotheses follow. Finally, discussion of the

9 theoretical framework is presented, followed by definition of terms, assumptions, limitations, and delimitations of this study. Background of the Problem Researchers confirm that teachers are essential to successfully integrating technology into classrooms (Sturgess, 2006; Watson, 2007). Technology usage has changed education; however, it is a method unfamiliar for many K-12 teachers (Watson). K-12 education is gravely lagging behind postsecondary education in internet usage for teaching purposes (Sturgess; Watson). A meaningful learning environment that incorporates technology usage must exist when establishing the curriculum. Many teachers use existing technologies for purposes such as record-keeping, lesson plan creation, creation of materials, and communicating with parents (Judson, 2006). Teachers who rely on teacher directed instruction are more resistant to allowing student exploration of concepts using technology (Judson). The problem is K-12 teachers fail to integrate technology tools into their classrooms (Judson; Rentie, 2008). Rentie conducted a study to examine the digital divide and how to narrow the technology gap among low-income and minority students. All respondents agreed that technology enhances learning, and results of the study indicated that few teachers use technology daily for instructional purposes (Rentie). One recommendation for further study was to compare upper and lower grades to see if any differences exist in the degrees of technology integration between K-3 and 4-6. The researcher of this study has elected to make comparisons between K-6, 7-8, and 9-12. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) attempted to reform the education strategies aimed at lessening student achievement gaps (United States

10 Department of Education, 2007). Teachers remain the key ingredient to successful integration of technology into the classroom (Sturgess, 2006; Watson, 2007). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) provides for the inclusion of high-quality professional development (United States Department of Education, 2007). In accordance with NCLB, high quality professional development is a necessity to begin acting as a change agent in how teachers teach (Fox). To maximize the available tools, teachers need continual support that goes far beyond training and workshops (Fox). Technology research can change the teaching and learning approaches in classrooms and a technology-enriched curriculum may equip 21st century students to become both critical thinkers and leaders (Yazon, 2004). Few trends have changed in schools (Watson, 2007). The structural foundation in which students learn reflects the fostering of structural dependence needed (Carpenter, 2006). Using technology in the classroom is a method used to make the shift from traditional methods of instruction to more constructive-compatible instruction (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). Methods of learning in conjunction with integration of educational technology are a relatively new mode of instruction that needs further study to examine the effectiveness on student learning (Askun, 2007). Teachers use technology in ways that are consistent with their current teaching practices (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). Teachers are less likely to implement technology if it is not already a current practice within their instructional design (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). For teachers to transform instructional practices and for technology to serve as a channel for change, technology support must exist (Matzen & Edmunds). Additionally, for teachers to change instructional uses of technology there must be some

11 pedagogical connections on how the use of technology will support the curriculum, otherwise, bad pedagogy may become automated (Debevec, Shih, & Kashyap, 2006; Pederson, 2006). Integrating technology into the classroom is likely to be unsuccessful unless there is an understanding of how teacher attitudes and beliefs affect the implementation of tools across disciplines (Pederson, 2006). The research explored how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. The research also explored specific techniques or methods that technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. Statement of the Problem Education is an ever-changing field and has had to adapt to meet the changing needs of the students. Several studies have examined the method of classroom technology integration (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2000; United States Department of Education, 2007). According to Judson (2006), most studies related to teachers and their use of technology have focused on cataloging computer skills and availability of technology within schools and have reported that the availability has grown substantially. However, there is much less research on how frequently and in what manner these technologies are being used. ( 8) K-12 teachers fail to integrate technology tools into their classrooms to promote active academic engagement (Judson, 2006; Rentie, 2008). While technology enhances learning, study results indicate that few teachers use technology daily for instructional

12 purposes (Rentie). Comparison of upper and lower grades examining if any differences in the degrees of technology integration needs further study (Rentie). To fulfill this purpose, a mixed method study explored comparisons of upper and lower grade teachers examining if any differences exist in the type and degrees of technology integration. One possible cause contributing to this problem is the availability of technology resources and professional development opportunities. Another possible cause is individual teachers instructional methodologies. Additionally, specific technological implementation barriers link to available resources, or lack of resources, on each campus. The research explored how available resources, or lack of resources, influenced the level of integration by technology proficient teachers. This mixed method research study explored how teachers in one suburban school district feeder pattern in north central Texas integrate educational technology tools into the classroom to promote active academic engagement and if teaching practices and methodologies influence willingness to integrate such tools. In its proposed state, the mixed method study interviewed 20 technology proficient teachers to complete the qualitative section of the study. The study was open to 400 technologically proficient teachers across the feeder pattern for completion of the quantitative section. Because the research created the survey instrument, a pilot study was conducted. Twenty technology proficient teachers were invited to participate in the pilot study, and each participant had the opportunity to participate in both the qualitative and quantitative sections. The teachers participating in the study were general education classroom teachers. Participation of staff members was requested to ensure reliability and validity; however, interviews were voluntary.

13 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this mixed method study was to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. The research also explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. The mixed method design allowed exploration of themes (Creswell, 2004; Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006; Hunt, 2007; Simon, 2006) within different school cultures in comparison to one another. Using a mixed method approach allowed a deeper analysis of the data (Creswell; Gay et al.; Hunt; Simon). Gathering qualitative data provided deeper insight than using only a quantitative approach (Creswell; Gay et al.; Hunt; Simon). Using both methods allowed the researcher to obtain data from multiple grade levels and teachers at various levels of technology competencies. Finally, a mixed method design increased the validity and accuracy of information (Hunt). A triangulation mixed method design was used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data simultaneously. Triangulation of the data was appropriate for this study in search of themes directly related to integration of educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement across three data points. The primary independent variable was methods and techniques teachers use to integrate online technology tools into the classroom. The primary dependent variable was active engagement within the classroom. Moderating variables, defined for the purpose of potential influences on dependent variables, included gender, age, race, years teaching, number of hours of technology integration, types of professional development, and available resources.

14 In the proposed state, this mixed method study interviewed 20 technology proficient teachers to complete the qualitative section of the study. The study was open to 400 technologically proficient teachers across the feeder pattern for completion of the quantitative section. In the actual study, only 48 teachers participated. All of the participants were general education classroom teachers in one suburban school district feeder pattern in north central Texas. Significance of the Study There are contradicting ideas regarding educational because there are varying definitions of true educational technology (Januszewski, 1994). The existing research discussing how technology tools are used in the learning environment is popular in the business sector and throughout higher education (Bonk & Graham, 2006); however, minimal research currently exists on how often and in what manner technology is used in K-12 classrooms (Judson, 2006). The research explored how technology proficient teachers integrate technology into their curriculum to engage students in the learning process. Significance of the Study to Leadership The completion of this study may empower educational leaders and classroom teachers to consider new methods of instruction, thus allowing for differentiated instruction, which may ultimately service students at all levels. Providing the field of education with additional information on why teachers fail to implement online educational technology into their existing curriculum may provide a solid foundation for educational institutions to assist teachers in effective methods of technology integration. With this additional information in the body of knowledge, educational leaders may

15 develop programs to assist faculty who are experiencing difficulty in the implementation of educational technology tools to promote active engagement for students at all academic levels. The results of this study may assist in the implementation of new programs encouraging the integration of online educational tools in K-12 classrooms promoting active academic engagement at school, district, and state levels. Additionally, results of this study may influence the future of educational technology integration and implementation from campus to campus across various school districts. Nature of the Study There have been substantial advancements with the available technological infrastructures located in K-12 schools; however, there are low integration usages to promote student development (Pederson, 2006). Research from the United States Department of Education indicated that while the overall availability of technology has grown, the method in which teachers have opted to integrate the technology has not significantly changed (Judson, 2006). Approximately half of the teachers in public schools who have computers or the internet use the computers for classroom instructional practices (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000). Judson (2006) noted that the most common tasks in many classrooms are using word processing and creating spreadsheets. Approximately half of the teachers had students use the computers to complete drill and practice activities (Judson). With the influx of technology into K-12 classrooms, it is an expectation that teachers will successfully integrate technology into the curriculum. The mixed method research explored how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. The research also explored

16 what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. Overview of the Research Method Use of the mixed method design allowed examination of themes in response to the research questions. Using a qualitative survey allowed examination of themes associated with one building while comparing the data to the quantitative survey to uncover similarities and differences found within particular schools or grade levels (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Hunt, 2007; Simon, 2006). The gathering of qualitative data provided deeper insight versus using only a quantitative approach (Creswell; Gay, Mills, & Eurasian; Hunt; Simon). The use of both methods allowed the researcher to obtain data from multiple grade levels and teachers at various levels of technology competencies. Finally, a mixed method design increased validity and accuracy of information (Hunt). The researcher used a triangulation mixed method design to collect both qualitative and quantitative data simultaneously. Triangulation was appropriate because the research explored themes directly related to integration of educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Hunt, 2007; Simon, 2006). The primary independent variable was methodologies and techniques teachers use to integrate online technology tools into the classroom. The primary dependent variables were active engagement and technology integration type within the classroom. Moderating variables, defined for the purpose of potential influences on dependent variables, including gender, age, race, years teaching, number of

17 hours of technology integration, types of professional development, and available resources. Overview of the Design Appropriateness A mixed method design has been selected for this study to allow the researcher an opportunity to collect, analyze, and report on both quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Hunt, 2007; Simon, 2006). The quantitative design allowed the researcher to produce results to assess the frequency and magnitude of trends (Creswell, p. 559). The qualitative data was collected using open-ended interview questions that offer[ed] many different perspectives on the study topic and provide[d] a complex picture of the situation (Creswell, p. 559). Combining the two designs allowed deeper analysis of the data sets (Creswell; Gay et al.; Hunt; Simon). The researcher used a triangulation mixed method design to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. The mixed method design gave value to both qualitative and quantitative data. Triangulation of the data was appropriate for this study because the research explored themes directly related to integration of online educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. The researcher viewed qualitative and quantitative data equally to gain a deeper understanding of the research problem (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Hunt, 2007; Simon, 2006). A quantitative only design would not be appropriate for this study. Quantitative research studies allow for researcher-controlled environments under research-controlled conditions (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Hunt, 2007; Simon, 2006) while qualitative researchers strive to study things in their naturalistic settings, qualitative research is sometimes referred to as naturalistic research, naturalistic inquiry, or field-

18 oriented research (Creswell, p. 399). The literature in a qualitative study plays a minor role; it justifies the research problem (Creswell; Gay et al.; Hunt; Simon). In quantitative research, the literature plays a major role; justifies the research problem and creates a need for the direction (purpose statement and research questions or hypotheses) of the study (Creswell, p. 53). Gathering quantitative data for this mixed method research study allowed examination of data to uncover equally represented themes obtained from the research study (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Hunt; Simon, 2006). The literature gathered assisted in understanding any gaps and provided direction for further research development (Hunt, 2007). The quantitative design was appropriate to this study because the study examined numerical data (Creswell; Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006; Simon, 2006). A quantitative approach was appropriate because in quantitative research the investigator studies problems in which trends need to be described or explanations need to be developed for relationships among variables (Creswell, p. 50). A qualitative design was also appropriate because it allowed deeper examination of the research problem (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Simon, 2006). While examining the research problem, exploration of data sets allowed the researcher an opportunity to learn more from participants due to limited information located within the literature (Creswell; Gay et al.; Simon). The researcher administered semi-structured interviews to 48 teachers in one feeder pattern in one suburban school district in north central Texas. The interviews collected confidential data centering on the integration of online technology tools to foster active academic engagement. For the quantitative phase of the research study, the

19 researcher administered a structured survey instrument to 48 teachers across the feeder pattern of one school district located in north central Texas. First, data were collected and analyzed using a pilot study; the study used a selfcreated interview instrument to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. Initially, the research study included approximately 400 teachers within the feeder pattern; however, due to a lack of consent forms the research was limited to 48 participants. The research explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. The data were collected using qualitative and quantitative methods. The data underwent hand coding of the data. Once the data were coded, it underwent a preliminary exploratory analysis and theme identification. The data is displayed using narratives, tables, and figures to summarize the findings. Research Questions The purpose of this mixed method study was to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. The research explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. As a result, the research questions were designed to explore how teachers integrate online technology tools within their classroom. Four research questions drove the study. The research questions were: Research Question 1: How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use

20 technology for active engagement among students in the K-12 classroom? Technologically proficient teachers are defined as those teachers who know best instructional practices and integrate technology into the classroom one to five times per week; either teacher led or student centered. Research Question 2: What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement? Research Question 3: What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers with technology integration? Research Question 4: What effect, if any, does the application type have on the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? Each of the research questions open for exploration share a linkage to one another. In Research Question 1, the researcher examined how technologically proficient teachers incorporate technology tools to foster the learning environment on a daily or weekly basis. Research Question 2 through 4 allowed the researcher to examine the data from a different angle. To provide the school district with further recommendations on how to encourage the use of technology within the classroom, exploration of specific techniques or methods teachers use or do not use, potential barriers, and any effects of technology integration occurred. Examining the effect of the application type in relation to active engagement is important due to the increased importance of all students remaining actively engaged to receive the most from their learning environment.

21 Hypotheses The hypotheses included a null and an alternative hypothesis to determine how teachers integrate technology into the classroom to promote active engagement. The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses are as follows: H01: Technologically proficient teachers do not integrate a variety of computer applications and internet based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project based learning activities. Ha1: Technologically proficient teachers integrate a variety of computer applications and internet based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project based learning activities. H02: Technologically proficient teachers do not use a variety of Web materials, computer applications, and higher-level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week. Ha2: Technologically proficient teachers use a variety of Web materials, computer applications, and higher-level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week. H03: Technologically proficient teachers do not perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications), administrative support, and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration. Ha3: Technologically proficient teachers perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications), administrative support, and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration. H04: The technology application type, such as blogging and podcasting. has no impact on

22 a students level of academic engagement. Ha4: The technology application type, such as blogging and podcasting, has an impact on a students level of academic engagement. It is important to examine each of these hypotheses in relation to how teachers integrate technology into their daily instructional routines. Examination of each hypothesis allowed the researcher and the school district personnel an opportunity to collaborate thus providing more opportunities for teachers to integrate a variety of technologies into the curriculum with fewer barriers. Theoretical Framework Two theoretical models guided this research study: constructivism and behaviorism. Constructivist teachers place emphasis on the students and the teacher becomes the facilitator (Correiro, Griffin, & Hart, 2008). Behaviorists believe that a persons cultural and sub-cultural conditioning molds individual personalities (Barnett, 2003). Two methods of how students use computers in schools have been studied (Barnett). First, students learn from computers where the computer acts as a tutor. The computer presents the information to the student and then the student responds. Categorized in this area are drill and practice games and programs (Barnett). Second, is a focus on learning with computers where the technologies allow students to write, create and analyze data, develop presentations through a variety of software, and conduct research (Barnett). Constructivism Constructivism is not a new phenomenon or theory in education (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). Beginning in the 1930s, this theory has influenced educators across the

23 United States. Under constructivism, the emphasis is on the student, not the teacher (Correiro et al., 2008). Interaction with more capable peers tends to lead to higher achievement in lower level students (Brown, 2002). Many educators do not provide appropriate learning environments where student discussion is regularly implemented (Anderson, 2007). In class, factors such as time, number of students, and student willingness limit discussion (Brown). One alternative to foster student learning and discussion is to utilize electronic discussion groups to provide effective learning environments and to promote social learning (Brown). Vygotskys theories affect many areas of education including curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Brown; Vygotsky, 1978). Peer assisted learning has been found to have an impact on student attitudes towards learning (Tzuriel & Shamir, 2007). The curriculum design, under Vygotsky theories, should allow children to socially interact and construct meaning from their learning (Thompson, 2008). Assessments should consider students zone of proximal development and be configured to reach students at their actual development as well as their potential developmental zones. Finally, instruction scaffolding should occur to meet individual student needs. It is important to keep each student on a self-paced learning plan to ensure adequate learning is occurring (Thompson). Piaget, another constructivist and cognitivist, upheld the theory of cognitive constructivism that has two major parts, which include ages and stages (Correiro et al., 2008). Both of these components serve as a cognitive theory of development that describes what children are capable of doing at various stages (Correiro et al.). Piaget, like Vygotsky, supported the notion that experiences facilitate the creation of schemas, known as mental models, in children. Overall framing of Piagets constructivism is

24 different from other constructivists. Piagets theory is developmental in children through stages and ages, which is different from other constructivists such as Papert, whose theory is more clearly associated with students who are learning to learn and constructing meaning through what they are learning (Kretchmar, 2008). Teachers as Constructivists A review of the available literature on teachers as constructivists is widespread (Judson, 2006). In education, many reading programs rely on theory; however, limited research exists regarding how student learning occurs through the empirical theories. Under the constructivist view, when students can construct their own meaning from their learning it is more relevant and meaningful (Huang, 2006). Constructivist learning is not limited to receiving knowledge rather it includes building knowledge (Huang). The process of constructive learning is active, providing learners opportunities to discover their own concepts (Huang). Therefore, students who are constructivists create their own interpretations, reflect on their own understanding, and apply their new knowledge (Huang). The use of hands-on-projects has proven to increase motivation and increase student involvement (Huang). Learning communities grounded in constructivism allow learners immediate knowledge within a social context (Correiro et al., 2008). In this environment, the role of language changes, allowing the learner to shape and extend his or her thinking (Correiro et al.). This supports Vygotskys theory of students moving through stages of cognitive development through socially mediated situations (Correiro et al.). A constructivist view on teaching and learning is a cause for current educational reform (Palmer, 2005). Constructivist learning is an active process where students make

25 meaning influenced by social contexts (Palmer; Correiro et al., 2008). Constructivist classrooms include a language-rich environment where the teacher scaffolds instruction, thus promoting metacognition (Palmer). The goal of instruction in the constructivist classroom is to have students at a level of independence; however, the teacher is continuously assessing students for new needs (Palmer). In the constructivist classroom, students work to achieve high-level thinking through social interaction and exploration of problems while the teacher acts as the facilitator (Palmer). Constructivism literature supports the notion that the teacher becomes the facilitator and the students become the individuals who gather the new knowledge in depth to fulfill individual needs (Correiro et al.; Huang, 2006; Palmer, 2005). Behaviorism The literature reviewed regarding the behaviorist theory was conclusive with the idea that knowledge exists on its own (Barnett, 2003; Butzin, 2000; Greevy, 2005; Learning Theories, 2006; Peake, Briers, & Murphy, 2005; Summary of Behaviorism, 2008). In this theory, learning ensues during the transmission and acquisition of knowledge (Summary of Behaviorism). In behaviorist classrooms there is practice and feedback on learning experiences, the teacher facilitates the activities, students complete work independently and individually, objectives are measured, the learning is unstructured, and assessment is measured in traditional methods (i.e. worksheets and tests) (Greevy; Learning Theories; Peake et al.; Summary of Behaviorism). Behaviorists believe that learning takes place due to external experiences and that teachers teach and students learn (Greevy, 2005; Summary of Behaviorism, 2008). Learning occurs through drill and practice and the learner is able to give predicted

26 outcomes (Summary of Behaviorism). Teacher-directed and structured classrooms are consistent with this theory. Instruction is sequential, beginning with lower level and working to higher levels, regardless of student ability levels and existing knowledge. There is less emphasis on group work and more emphasis on individualized work and the instruction follows a more traditional approach (Greevy; Summary of Behaviorism). Behaviorists expect that whenever any instructional activity is effective, students will change in some obvious and measurable way (Peake et al., 2005). Under this theory, a student who has completed a lesson should be able to do something better than he or she did prior to the lesson (Peake et al.). Traditional methods of teaching fall into the behaviorist theory of learning (Greevy). From a behaviorist perspective, technology integration is in the form of videos, films, and transparencies where students absorb information regardless of the medium used to share the information (Greevy). Teachers as Behaviorists Learning occurs through drill and practice and the learner is able to give predicted outcomes (Behaviorist Theory, n.d.; Summary of Behaviorism, 2008). Teacher-directed and structured classrooms are consistent with this theory. Instruction is sequential, beginning with lower level and working to higher levels, regardless of student ability levels and existing knowledge (Behaviorist Theory; Summary of Behaviorism). There is less emphasis on group work and more emphasis on individualized work; the instruction follows a more traditional approach and pedagogical practices (Behaviorist Theory; Summary of Behaviorism). Many instructional tools and programs currently exist that guide students through particular skills and concepts previously or recently taught within the classroom (Cornell,

27 2007). Assessment programs that give immediate feedback to students are highly utilized in behaviorist classrooms. According to Cornell, when a computer program automatically grades an assessment, the teacher has more time to focus on other activities. Information gleaned from such assessments indicates if a student needs more work on a particular skill set. If this is the case, the student is able to go to a computer to work on the necessary skills while the rest of the class works on another assignment (Cornell). In a behaviorist classroom, when students are working on project and problembased assignments, it is important for students to know how to operate the computer programs at their disposal. Teachers who follow a behaviorist approach find it necessary to teach the computer program step-by-step to assist the student in understanding basic principles of using the program (Cornell, 2007). Once the students familiarize themselves with the computer program, the focus can then shift to the process of the larger task. From a behaviorist perspective, technology programs enhance feedback because students receive feedback immediately (Cornell). When students receive immediate feedback, they are able to receive additional instruction to discover areas of weakness within a particular skill rather than learning a skill incorrectly (Cornell). Definition of Terms Blended Learning: For the purpose of this study, blended learning is defined as a method that integrates partial online learning with traditional learning methods (Bonk & Graham, 2006). District Feeder Pattern: The flow of schools a student may attend through his or her education (Cobb County School District, 2007). For the purpose of this study, schools located in the K-4, 5-6, 7-8, and 9-12 campus feeder pattern were examined.

28 Online Learning: Online learning has many definitions. For the purpose of this study, online learning is defined as a portion of the curriculum accessed through the internet by teachers and students (Bonk & Graham, 2006; Saettler, 2004). Social Networking: Social networking is a method used that allows students to interact with one another using a variety of technological platforms including, but not limited to, blogging (Lenhart & Madden, 2007). Technology Proficient Teachers (Technotraditionalists & Technoconstructivists): Technotraditionalist teachers who use technology proficiently accomplish tasks in the classroom including e-mail and digital slideshows (Mackenzie, 2005). Technoconstructivists are teachers who use technology to change the classroom approaches to teaching and learning (Mackenzie). For the purpose of this study, teachers who know best instructional practices and integrate technology into the classroom one to five times per week in either teacher-led or student-centered environments were included. Assumptions Several assumptions were made in selecting the most appropriate design of the study and the selection of the surveying instrument. The first assumption was that all teachers would provide forthright and truthful answers to the survey instrument questions. Because a pilot study was administered, it was assumed that the selected interview instruments were valid and reliable. All individuals invited to participate in the research study were within the same feeder pattern for the district so an assumption was that all staff members solicited would partake in the completion of the interview questions. An additional assumption was that all teachers were aware of their preferred pedagogical preferences. This was assumed because teachers must have an awareness of

29 their practices for best meeting the needs of their students. A final assumption was that data results would be generalizable. Generalizability was important because it was expected that the data trends discovered with the small population might be carried to a larger population with similar results. Scope and Limitations The influence of consequences exists when the consequences are evenly enforced and are not subjective (Cerafoss, 2007). Consequences must remain consistent and evenly enforced for those teachers who choose not to implement online educational tools to increase active academic engagement. The consistency of the consequences must occur among all participants. This study was limited when consequences were not evenly applied to teachers who chose not to take a constructivist approach. This study was limited to one feeder pattern located in one suburban school district in north central Texas. An assumption was that all subjects would respond in an honest manner to each of the questions posed on the interview. This study was limited by honesty of the subjects responses to the interview questions. Time is essential to the proper development and understanding of a research problem. This study was limited by the amount of time available to conduct the study. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended interview questions regarding teachers approaches associated with technology integration to promote active academic engagement. Qualitative interviews were administered on a volunteer basis to 20 technologically proficient teachers in one suburban school district in north central Texas. The interview instrument collected confidential data in examination of the

30 individuals background information (demographic data), implementation methods, and pedagogical practices centered on educational tools to promote active academic engagement. Quantitative surveys were distributed to approximately 400 K-12 teachers in one feeder pattern in one suburban school district in north central Texas. Validity of this study was limited to the reliability of the instruments used. Prior to the collection of data, a pilot study was conducted to refine the interview instrument and assure its effectiveness. Because the study population was limited to one suburban feeder pattern in one school district in north central Texas, the generalizability of the study was limited. The data collected from the qualitative portion may be significantly different from the data collected from the quantitative data, thus possibly affecting the generalizability of the study. The mixed method allowed the researcher to triangulate the quantitative and qualitative data along with the research literature. The researcher had the opportunity to qualify the quantitative data. Because of this, the researcher felt more confident of the generalizability because the topic was examined from multiple perspectives. Delimitations This study was confined to surveying K-12 classroom teachers in one feeder pattern in one suburban school district located in north central Texas. Only teachers within the Fossil Ridge feeder pattern, volunteering to participate, were included in the study. The study focus was on how teachers use educational technology tools for active engagement among students. The study was delimited by selection of the population. The researcher could include all teachers K-12 in selected schools within the feeder pattern; however, only core classroom teachers were selected. The study was limited to general

31 education teachers, thus eliminating special education and specials teachers, including Physical Education, Band, Art, Music, and Drama. Eventually, despite the delimitations, the information derived from this research study may be of value to K-12 education teachers who integrate technology tools into their curriculum. By observing how teachers integrate technology into the curriculum for active engagement among students, it may be possible to refocus attention for future research to identify how technology integration affects student learning.

32 Summary The implementation of constructivist methodology in achieving student achievement in todays classrooms is essential to the long-term success of these students (Palmer, 2005). In the constructivist classroom, students work in an attempt to achieve higher level thinking through social interaction and exploration of problems while the teacher acts as the facilitator (Palmer). Changing teachers role to a more constructivist approach may be a difficult task to accomplish (Palmer). Understanding that teachers are the key to successful technology integration and using technology to enhance student learning is an area with limited knowledge (Sturgess, 2006; United States Department of Education, 2007; Watson, 2007). The fact that K-12 classrooms is behind using the internet to teach and teachers limit the scope of technology use to record keeping or material creation makes technology integration into the curriculum a problematic area of concern (Judson, 2006; Rentie, 2008; Watson, 2007). Transforming teachers is essential to ensuring student success (Fox, 2007). Additionally, providing teachers with the necessary tools to transform instructional practice to serve as a channel for change (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007) is essential to student success. Encouraging technology integration and promoting innovation may allow teachers to make pedagogical connections to how technology can support the curriculum (Debevec et al., 2006; Pederson, 2006). The data analysis may lead to new discoveries and theories associated with the implementation of educational technology tools used to promote active academic engagement and may enable leaders to determine what modifications are necessary within the school to provide opportunities for teachers to integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement.

33 The literature relevant to online educational technology tools and linkage to active academic engagement is reviewed in the following chapter. The literature review follows a timeline from the history and advancements of distance learning and educational technology to a discussion on a variety of online educational technology tools available for teachers. Chapter 2 also contains a discussion of how teachers use these tools in todays classrooms.

34

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this mixed method study was to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools into the classroom to promote active academic engagement. The study explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the study explored particular barriers to technology integration. Chapter 2 reviewed the literature on cognition and learning, methods of technology used for active engagement of students in the learning process, barriers to technology integration, and practices associated with technology integration. A review of the constructivist approach examined how the approach contributes to the educational environment by allowing students the opportunity to construct new meaning from knowledge gained. There is also a brief discussion on the behaviorist approach to show how teachers who follow this theory integrate technology into their classroom. The historical overview presents a discussion of the studys conceptual framework. Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals In addition to published books, various Websites, EBSCOhost database, journal articles, and electronic dissertations through ProQuest database were reviewed. Scholarly research detailing the variables were located through EBSCOhost database, ProQuest database, Google Scholar, and Thomas Gale Powersearch, which includes access to full text journals, periodicals, magazines, peer-reviewed articles, pamphlets, and newspapers. The Thomas Gale Powersearch includes full text access to those periodical articles and peer-reviewed journals with a historical focus from the 1980s. Each database was searched with key words including educational technology, instructional technology, constructivism, behaviorism, constructivist teaching, behaviorist teaching, educational

35 theories, and educational technologies. The ProQuest database specifically was searched to locate research studies conducted recently discussing how teachers use technology in the classroom. Historical Overview For the past 20 years educators have struggled with effective integration computers into the K-12 classroom (Peake et al., 2005). Theorists such as Thorndike (connectionism), Pavlov (classical conditioning), Skinner (operant conditioning), and Vygotsky (zone of proximal development) all gave direction to the early research examining the impact of educational technology on behaviors and learning that has affected todays classrooms (Peake et al., 2005; Saettler, 2004). Many changes in education have occurred over time (Baker, 2005; Peake). The introduction of computers and telecommunication devices brought new sources to the K-12 schools (Baker). The introduction of new resources led to a debate regarding teachers as being the key player in education, not the technology applications brought into the system (Baker). Leaders in the last 20 years have encouraged the use of educational technology in K-12 classrooms (Brown, 2002; Baker, 2005). Global demands emphasize the need for technology in education, and the old way of doing things no longer works. As a result, organizational change is needed (Bonk & Graham, 2006). Standards in technology performances designed for teachers and students require the increase of educational technology in classrooms to enhance student learning (Shaunessy, 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) provided additional funds to assist integration of technology into the curriculum by 2006; however, many districts still lack the availability

36 of resources and professional development for teachers to assist in the integration (United States Department of Education, 2007). The historical overview examines three perspectives regarding technology. The first perspective examines the advancement of technology. Second is the examination of alternative learning environments for all students. Finally, there is an examination of how educational technology has affected student learning. Theoretical Framework Two theoretical models guide this research study: constructivism and behaviorism. In the constructivist theory, the emphasis is placed on the students and the teacher becomes the facilitator (Correiro et al., 2008). Behaviorists believe that a persons cultural and sub-cultural conditioning molds individual personalities (Behaviorist Theory, n.d.). The available literature surrounding academic engagement through online technologies is grounded in blended theory specific to constructivism and behaviorism. Learning is the construction of knowledge and occurs through social relationships and is distributed and shared through the community. For learning to occur, it has to be meaningful, and meaningful learning is authentic, cooperative, and conversational (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). Learning is not a linear process; however, the educational system tends to make it linear by developing high standards for each student to meet (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). Once the standards have been created, they are aligned to the curriculum and an assessment is created to measure each students ability to meet the standards. Many proposals have been presented to address issues that surround the way students construct meaning (Brooks & Brooks).

37 Researchers have studied two significant ways how students use computers in schools (Barnett, 2003). First, students learn from computers and computers act as a tutor. The computer presents the information, and then the student responds. Categorized in this area are drill and practice games or programs (Barnett). Second, there is a focus on how students learn with computers. Computers allow students to write, create, and analyze data, develop presentations, and conduct research (Barnett). In the first scenario, the computer engages students in a behaviorist ideology. In the second scenario, students were engaged, forcing them to use higher order thinking skills lending this type of learning to constructivism (Barnett). Behaviorism The literature reviewed regarding the behaviorist theory was conclusive with the idea that knowledge exists on its own (Barnett, 2003; Butzin, 2000; Greevy, 2005; Peake et al.; Learning Theories, 2006; Summary of Behaviorism, 2008). In the behaviorist theory, learning ensues during the transmission and acquisition of knowledge (Summary of Behaviorism). In behaviorist classrooms there is practice and feedback on learning experiences, the teacher facilitates the activities, students complete work independently and individually, objectives are measured, the learning is unstructured, and assessment is measured in traditional methods (i.e. worksheets and tests) (Greevy; Learning Theories; Peake et al.; Summary of Behaviorism). Behaviorists believe that learning takes place due to external experiences and that teachers teach and students learn (Greevy, 2005; Summary of Behaviorism, 2008). Learning occurs through drill and practice and the learner is able to give predicted outcomes (Greevy; Summary of Behaviorism). Teacher-directed and structured

38 classrooms are consistent with this theory. Instruction is sequential, beginning with lower level and working to higher levels, regardless of student ability levels and existing knowledge. There is less emphasis on group work and more emphasis on individualized work and the instruction follows a more traditional approach (Greevy; Summary of Behaviorism). Behaviorists expect when any instructional activity is effective, students will change in some obvious and measurable way (Peake et al., 2005). Under the behaviorist theory, a student who has completed a lesson should be able to do something better than he or she did prior to the lesson (Peake et al.). Traditional methods of teaching fall into the behaviorist theory of learning (Greevy). From a behaviorist perspective, technology integration is in the form of videos, films, and transparencies where students absorb information regardless of the medium used to share the information (Greevy). B. F. Skinners Contribution to Education B. F. Skinner, the father of operant conditioning, believed that learning occurs best when there is a reward after a student provides the desired response, as in drill and practice software programs (Learning Theories, 2006). Learning occurs inside ones own mind and people shape their behaviors by desired responses (Learning Theories). During early technology integration, many teachers fall under the behaviorist approach to learning (Learning Theories). In this stage, students provide the correct answer and receive immediate rewards with points or something similar (Peake et al., 2005). Under B. F. Skinners operant conditioning, learning occurs when behavioral changes have occurred (Peake, Briers, & Murphy, 2005). Skinner believed for teachers to take advantage of recent advancements in teaching and learning, they must have assistance from mechanical devices, such as

39 computers (Skinner, 1954). In 1953, a shift in educational thinking occurred with the manifestation of B. F. Skinners operant conditioning theory and the inclusion of small technological advances (Skinner). Skinners contribution to education significantly affected how technology evolved and was included in learning. In 1953, Skinner visited a school where he noticed students working on mathematics; some were successful, yet others struggled (Skinner). Skinner became frustrated with the amount of time it took for students to receive feedback on assignments, so he created a manila folder teaching machine, which later evolved into a slider machine (Skinner). The slider machine allowed students to complete their work on cardboard discs, place it in a machine, and receive immediate feedback (Skinner). The programmed instruction was engineered with positive reinforcement that stemmed from answering questions correctly (Skinner). With few mistakes, students progressed at much higher rates of speed and immediate positive reinforcement shaped student learning behaviors (Skinner). Skinner did not take credit for the first teaching machine; however, his machine was able to facilitate a programmed instructional design including a positive reinforcement component (Skinner). Skinner realized an educational reform was needed and convinced IBM and Rheem to develop prototype teaching machines (Skinner). Constructivism Constructivism is not a new theory in education. Theorists such as, Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky believed the emphasis is placed on the students, not the teacher (Correiro et al., 2008). Piaget upheld the theory of cognitive constructivism that has two major parts, ages and stages (Correiro et al.). The ages and stages component is a predictor for what students are capable of doing at various stages (Correiro, Griffin, &

40 Hart). Piaget supported the idea that children build knowledge through experiences (Correiro et al.). Vygotsky (1978), the father of the zone of proximal development, explained that a students zone of proximal development is the distance between actual developmental levels determined by independent problem solving ability and the level of potential development under adult guidance or cooperative learning with higher-level peers. Student experiences facilitate the creation of schemas, also known as mental models (Correiro et al.). In constructivism, teachers become facilitators of learning who assist students in the construction of meaning and processing of new information. Teachers are the facilitators who are present to assist students in their construction and building schema to construct their own solutions to existing problems (Correiro et al., 2008). Teachers use technology tools for active engagement among students at higher cognition levels, thus leaving teachers facilitators and coaches rather than knowledge dispensers (Means et al., 2003). The teacher is responsible for providing the engaging activities; however, once the exercises begin, the teacher relinquishes control of the learning process, thus leaving students accountable and responsible for their own learning as a process (Means et al.). Vygotskys theories affected many areas of education including curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The curriculum design should allow children to socially interact and construct new meaning from their learning (Brown, 2002). Assessments should consider students zone of proximal development and must be configured to reach students at their actual development and potential development zones. As a result, the teacher is responsible for assisting the students in movement through the zone allowing them to become expert users of their new knowledge (Sherman & Kurshan, 2005).

41 Instruction should scaffold to continually meet individual student needs while keeping each student on a self-paced learning plan to ensure adequate learning is occurring (Funderstanding, 2001). Methods of Technology Integration Many instructional tools and programs that guide students through particular skills and concepts previously or recently taught within the classroom currently exist (Cornell, 2007). Assessment programs that give immediate feedback to students are highly utilized in behaviorist classrooms while constructivist classrooms allow students to seek new knowledge (Cornell; Richardson, 2006). According to Cornell, when a computer program automatically graded an assessment, the teacher had more time to focus on other activities. Information gleamed from such assessments indicates if a student needs more work on a particular skill set (Cornell). When students are working on project and problem-based assignments, it is important for students to know how to operate the computer programs at their disposal (Cornell). Behaviorists Behaviorists believe that a persons cultural and sub cultural conditioning molds individual personalities (Behaviorist Theory, n.d.). Under the behaviorist theory, knowledge exists on its own and learning ensues during the transmission and acquisition of knowledge (Summary of Behaviorism, 2008). Learning occurs through drill and practice and the learner is able to give predicted outcomes (Summary of Behaviorism). Teacher-directed and structured classrooms are consistent with this theory. Instruction is sequential, beginning with lower level and working to higher levels, regardless of student ability levels and existing knowledge. There is less emphasis on group work and more

42 emphasis on individualized work and the instruction follows a more traditional approach and pedagogical practices. Teachers who follow a behaviorist approach find it necessary to teach the computer program systematically to assist the student in understanding basic principles of using the program (Cornell, 2007). Once students are familiar with the computer program, they can begin to focus on accomplishing the larger project. From a behaviorist perspective, technology programs enhance feedback because students receive feedback immediately (Cornell). When students receive immediate feedback, they are able to receive additional instruction to discover areas of weakness within a particular skill rather than learning a skill incorrectly (Cornell). Behaviorist Instructional Practices Computer assisted instruction. Behaviorist theorists favor computer-assisted instruction as a means of technology integration (Barber, 2008). This method of technology integration is favored because there is a guarantee of specific learning where the objectives are predetermined. At this time, specific objective outcomes are set and the learner knows what is expected (Barber). In addition, an assumption is that learning occurred when the learner reacted correctly according to the stimulus presented (Barber). Learning under behaviorism also demonstrates that success is easily measured and educators feel their time is used more efficiently (Barber). Additionally, educators are able to break the subject matter into smaller pieces where learners are typically able to respond correctly, leaving no room for manipulation of the newly acquired information. Finally, behaviorists believe the environment should be organized to allow the learner to concentrate on learning rather than assimilation of new knowledge.

43 Direct instruction. Many teachers use direct instruction (Cornell, 2007). In direct instruction, the teacher leads the learning, but the students are engaged in the learning process (Cornell). This is a commonly utilized approach used with distance learning. With the variety of Web-based instructional programs, the instructor can set up the learning to be led by either the computer or the teacher and in some cases by both (Cornell). Additionally, assessments can be for instant grading. Constructivist Instructional Practices Teachers today implement a variety of methods to reach students across disciplines (Richardson, 2006). Classrooms are making a shift in providing opportunities for students to be creators of new learning through collaborative, not individualized learning and active participation by all members of the classroom (Richardson). Constructivist classrooms provide students opportunities to construct knowledge for themselves in a way that they are able to understand it (Sherman & Kurshan, 2005). Teachers in constructivist classrooms use computer programs to help students demonstrate their knowledge. Teachers use a variety of methods to provide students with opportunities to make meaning from new knowledge. A variety of methods is available to assist teachers with the implementation of technology tools into the classroom. Teachers can use instructional software ranging from mind mapping, word processing, databases, publishing tools, PowerPoint for presentations, and a variety of educational software. Weblogs, wikis, podcasts, and vodcasts are methods some teachers use to transform the curriculum, allowing learning to occur far beyond the classroom doors (Richardson, 2006). Teachers are tapping into the potential of a World Wide Web that is a conversation, not a lecture, where knowledge is

44 shaped and acquired through a social process, and where ideas are presented as a starting point for dialogue, not an ending point (Richardson, p. 126). Social learning is a process where individuals learn from others, typically through the computer in the form of blogs, virtual learning environments, wikis, or podcasts (Munshi, 2004). Online discussion boards. Utilizing online discussion boards is one method teachers use to allow students to help one another bridge connections. In online discussion boards, the teacher can monitor the interaction between students. Additionally, the teacher can guide the students in discussion with a varying level of discussion questions while monitoring struggling students (Cornell, 2007). Virtual learning environments (VLEs). The evolution of distance learning has occurred from the focus on students who reside in rural areas to vibrant communities of learners who are in continual contact with one another (Justus, 2005). There is limited research on how K-12 schools use internet technologies for the purposes of teaching and learning. One recurring theme from the available literature is students enjoy learning from their peers through discussion and interaction in the online format (Brown, 2002). This facet of social networking is oftentimes used as a motivational tool and a teaching tool. Virtual learning environments (VLEs) are becoming more popular, especially in higher education and specific states that are homes to state led virtual academies. Some of the schools service K-12; however, others are limited in the grade levels they serve. In some states, there is no option for the state led virtual academies so public schools are leaning toward implementation of virtual learning environments.

45 Blended learning and social networking environments. Learning must invoke excitement, energy, and commitment to move from theory to implementation. Blended learning allows teachers to address all student needs. The expansion of flexible learning environments and opportunities leads to an increase in student achievement for all students (Bonk & Graham, 2006). Because a blended learning environment is a relatively new topic and limited research is available regarding the practice, there are even fewer studies regarding the effectiveness of this type of environment, particularly linked to the K-12 learning environment. In a blended learning environment, there is a higher level of interaction than what is normally found in a face-to-face learning environment (Wingard, 2004). This type of learning environment is allows students opportunities for active engagement at all times and can potentially learn more than they would in a traditional classroom setting (Bonk & Graham; Dzuiban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2007). Blended learning is a relatively new term in education. The idea of blended learning stems from combining virtual learning with traditional learning. Blended learning is also referred to as integrated learning, hybrid learning, and multi-method learning (Rovai & Jordan, 2004). Blended learning should be the ultimate perfect solution to tailoring learning to fit not only the learning need, but also the style of the learner (Thorne, 2003, p. 17). More learning takes place in student-centered learning environments; however, blended learning environments have been separated because of their vast differences in media and methods to address the needs of students (Rovai & Jordan; Bonk & Graham, 2006). Blended learning environments allow teachers to address all student needs. The expansion of flexible learning environments and opportunities leads to an increase in

46 student achievement for all students (Bonk & Graham, 2006). In blended learning environments, teachers and students correspond through e-mail, threaded discussion questions, and other online tools in combination with traditional face-to-face methods including lectures and in class exams (Tang, Owen, Biocca, & Mou, 2004). Social networks allow students the opportunity to integrate social behaviors with their academic instruction (DePaula, 2004). Social networking is not a new concept despite educator beliefs (Metz, 2006). The online learning environment is not suitable for all individuals (Bonk & Graham, 2006). Traditional face-to-face interaction is familiar and comfortable to many learners and online learning may not appeal to them. For some individuals who have limited technology skills, the online learning environment can be a frustrating task (Bonk & Graham). Drawbacks associated with blended learning and social network environments include limited knowledge or enthusiasm of the concept (Thorne, 2003). Research has been conducted to discover if student performance increases when receiving distance learning through internet delivery (Hirschheim, 2005). The general findings indicate there is not any significant difference in the achievement or satisfaction between the students in distance learning courses and those in traditional classrooms (Hirschheim). Blended learning environments could potentially become one of the most momentous developments in the 21st century (Thorne, 2003). Web-supplemented or technology-enhanced courses. Web-supplemented or technology-enhanced courses are those that add supplementary components online to a traditional course; however, the amount of face-to-face time is not diminished (Bonk & Graham, 2006). This type of learning environment transforms student learning. Students

47 who do not raise their hands to participate in traditional classrooms oftentimes flourish in Web-supplemented or technology-enhanced classrooms (Bonk & Graham). Motivation tends to be higher in online environments and student learning style directly affects how students perceive online learning environments (Brotz, 2006). Completion rates tend to be higher in online environments than traditional environments (Brotz). Many students change the way they approach their learning because of taking online classes (MacLachlan, 2004). Students typically spend a larger amount of time disseminating the class information and feel it is more personable to them and their individual learning needs. Online learning environments require students to remain focused and allow students to approach learning in a way that is meaningful, allowing students the opportunity to take the concepts into as much depth and complexity as they choose (MacLachlan). E-learning can be used to motivate gifted and talented students (Singh & Reed, 2001). Online learning improves student learning and achievement outcomes because there is a better match of method with student outcomes and programs offered (Singh & Reed). The method of instruction must be matched to each individual student to maximize success and learning opportunities (Singh & Reed). Podcasts/Screencasting (Vodcasts), blogs, weblogging, and wikis. Podcasting is the creation and distribution of amateur radio programs where everyday people talk about things that interest them (Richardson, 2006). Podcasting has significant pedagogical potential (Bausell, 2006). Podcasting is a set of technologies for supplying audio or video programs over the internet (Dervin, 2006, p. 31). Podcasts can provide meticulous learning opportunities for students of all ages. Podcasting is a new technology in which there is limited information on the uses and benefits (Behler, 2007). Podcasting can be

48 beneficial to students in allowing them to construct their own learning as well as providing students with disabilities inexpensive methods of learning reinforcement (Beheler). Podcasting stems from digital recordings and is very easy to create. Many pedagogical implications arise from using podcasts. In World Language classes, teachers can record and publish daily lessons that students can download and listen to at home (Richardson, 2006). English Language Learners (ELLs) can have podcast access at school to improve their fluency of the English language (Richardson). Social studies teachers can have students conduct interviews or create historical reenactments, while science teachers can have students narrate labs they have experienced (Richardson). After development of podcasts, students can publish and share their work across the internet. Screencasting, also known as vodcasting, is another medium used to influence student learning (Richardson, 2006). Screencasting is podcasting with video and narration added (Richardson). A combination of screencasting and podcasting can affect how student learning occurs. Students have the ability to construct new meaning from generalized information they have received. The creation of the content for either a screencasting or a podcasting event is collaborative (Richardson). Collaborative efforts are important because beyond the K-12 schools, students will enter a post education professional life where they will be expected to work collaboratively with others (Richardson). Blogging is one of the latest forms of technology integration in academics; however, there is limited research available on grassroot bloggers and limited information on comparing blog content across cultures (Feng, 2006). Blogging is a tool that has

49 potential benefits to struggling readers (Cole, 2004). Blogs facilitate a motivating environment that is free of criticism and judgment (Cole). Blogs provide an environment that fosters quality responses and promotes higher levels of thinking and discussion (Cole). Blogs have proven to have a positive impact on student and teacher attitudes to technology integration into the classroom (Cole). Weblogging is advantageous for several reasons, mainly retention of course material and differentiation of course materials for students of all ability levels (Bersin, 2004; Bonk & Graham, 2006). Weblogging is one method used to promote active academic engagement and discussion among students, adults, and others in academia. The reading and writing connection made through the internet is still in its very early stages (Richardson, 2006). Weblogs are a constructivist tool for learning that promotes the reading and writing connection (Richardson). The content that all students and teachers create using Weblogs are created through the World Wide Web (WWW) and is accessible to anyone; therefore, the content adds to the body of knowledge that the internet stores for millions of people to see (Richardson). Weblogging has several pedagogical implications (Richardson, 2006). The relevancy of student work is increased. When students have an awareness that their work is visible for anyone to read and respond to, it immediately becomes relevant to them and affects their learning process. Weblogs expand the walls of the classroom, and support learning by archiving prior conversations allowing for future metacognitive analysis and reflections that were once burdensome (Richardson). Weblogs support various levels of student abilities, and holds all students accountable for the same content; however, the levels of learning and depth are different. Weblogs can enhance student learning and

50 expertise in areas of interest. Additionally teachers can use Weblogs as a social networking tool to promote active academic engagement (Richardson). While Weblogging is still in its infancy in K-12, the promotion of social networking for academic purposes to allow students the opportunity to make connections is prevalent in this type of learning environment. Many pedagogical implications for Weblogging exist, including reflecting on books read, journaling stories read in class, researching a specific topic or discussing questions to promote critical thinking. Content knowledge may occur when the teacher uses deconstruction of old knowledge and reconstruction of new knowledge. Students can analyze and synthesize relevant information to develop a deeper understanding of the content being linked (Richardson, 2006). A wiki is an online website that allows users to add and edit content. Wikis are quickly gaining popularity as educators see the value in supporting authentic learning (Tello & Lewis, 2008). Wikis are a highly effective method of actively engaging students in the writing process (Richardson, 2006). To write in a wiki is to compose within a living organism (Allison, 2005, as cited in Richardson, p. 67). The use of a wiki requires students to critically think and read to see if their topic already exists in the discussion. As students interact within the wiki, they learn about collaboration (Richardson). Advancements of Educational Technology Educational technology dates back as far as the invention of the printing press (Saettler, 2004). Johann Friedrick Herbart (1777-1841) developed the first systems approach to instruction with a four step learning design (Saettler). Maria Montessori (1870-1952) is another innovator and her impact on educational technology is her

51 development of graded materials designed to provide an appropriate sequence and assessment of the material. These contributions to educational technology were made prior to the twentieth century although many educators believe they are relatively recent. In fact, educational technology began as early as 1780 with the view of teachers as individuals in charge of classroom instruction and assessment (Computer Questions, 2007). During the Middle Ages (500 to 1500 A.D.), developments in China and the Middle East began surfacing using simple machines (Zargari & MacDonald, 1994). During European colonization (1585-1763 A.D.), people began shifting their educational philosophies from humanism to realism (Nelson, 1981). The 1900s instigated a shift in how education was viewed. In the 1900s, there was an attempt to mimic traditional classroom lectures using live broadcasting regardless of the elected technologies selected. The various technologies included satellite, television, film, or radio (Toporski & Foley, 2004). The early 1900s was a time for change in the educational world. This spontaneous eruption led to the invention of educational film, which significantly affected education and was known as the visual instruction method (Saettler, 2004). Change occurred when there was a significant amount of visual instruction in the form of stereographs, lantern slides, maps, models, slide films, and motion picture films (Saettler). Distance learning has advanced from the use of educational technology that dates back prior to 1900. The first use of educational technology began around 1910 with the development of nontheatrical film in which educational agencies began to see the possibilities that existed (Saettler, 2004). Thomas Edison was one of the first to invent such films for the classroom (Saettler). The history of distance learning today is on a

52 continuum from the spoken language to current day digitalized transmissions (Saettler). Education has progressed from oral traditions found in a variety of cultures to online colleges and universities. There is an increase in the readily available technology making an entrance into the younger educational settings, such as K-12 institutions. While K-12 education is seriously lagging behind the postsecondary institutions in using the internet to teach (Watson, 2007), many states have begun an educational reform. At the end of 2006, 38 states had established state-led learning programs as well as policies that regulate the online learning (Watson). Of the 38 states, 25 have state-led learning programs and 18 states are home to 147 virtual charter schools. In total, the online learning environment supports over 65,000 students (Watson). The roots of online learning stem back before the 1960s; however, the focus has been primarily in higher education. Studies have concluded that online learning activities are suitable for adult learners; however, there has not been solid evidence that the same type of environment would be beneficial for younger students because it changes the educational landscape (Litke, 1998). Educational technology is currently experiencing substantial growth and society is continuously transformed by the existing technologies that encompass it (JIME: Educational Technology, 2003; Zargari & MacDonald, 1994). The dissemination of ideas regarding educational technology was in contradiction because there are varying definitions of what educational technology is (Januszewski, 1994). The literature is consistent with the dating of technology and the current day demands of the use of technology.

53 Alternative Learning Environments Educational technology is a tool that increases performance levels while allowing the use of innovative approaches with regard to teaching and learning (George, 2000). Educational technology is a method that allows students to have experiential and enjoyable learning experiences (Peake et al., 2005). Saettler (2004) argued that technologies do not mediate the learning, but the learning process and gaining of knowledge is mediated by cognitive processes that technology produces. Technology integrated within the classroom has shown an increase in student performance (Watson, 2007). Additionally, technology provides teachers with necessary tools that allow students to gather information, communicate, and present that information (Watson). In the 1980s, more computers began surfacing in schools to improve the teaching and learning process (Peake et al., 2005). Drill and practice components of educational technology implementation had become prevalent in the 1980s. The instructional theories began to transition from behaviorism to constructivism (Peake et al.; Saettler, 2004). Students were no longer passively responding to instructional stimuli, they began generating individual ideas and meaning based on experience (Saettler). Despite the rapid growth of K-12 online education, it faces many challenges and controversy in some states. The issues currently examined are fitting the new model of learning into an existing one that has created policies for physical brick and mortar schools. The controversy surfaces around redefining the preconceived notions of educators, policymakers, and legislators (Watson, 2007). Several states have expressed a concern as to whether online learning is an appropriate method of teaching and a good use of public education funds. There is limited data that reports the requirements as to

54 how students are taking online courses, how many programs exist, and the operations of these programs (Watson). Some states are embracing this new method of student learning while others are resisting. Impact of Technology Use on Learning Studies of instructional technology use over the last 10 years have shown how technology positively affects student learning (Means et al., 2003). Studies also indicate that there is no impact on student learning (Businesses Services Industry, 2005; Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003). The inclusion of technology in the classroom has changed the teachers role from a knowledge dispenser to a facilitator or student coach (Brown, 2002; Correiro et al., 2008). When students use applications such as word processing, spell check on written compositions, online/on-screen calculators, graphing programs, mind mapping software, PALM Pilots, Alpha smarts, databases, spreadsheet applications, instructional software, etc. they are using technology tools (Businesses Services Industry; Correiro et al.; Norris et al.). When the students shift from simply using the tools to manipulating the tools through composing essays, manipulating data in a spreadsheet, locating information from a database, publishing classroom newspapers, or creating a mind map for writing using mind mapping software, etc., students become actively engaged in the learning process and begin constructing new knowledge (Brown; Correiro et al.). Teachers can use technology tools as tutorial assistance, extensions to classroom projects, and exploratory projects, known as problem based or project based learning projects (Summary of Behaviorism, 2008). When technology is used as a tool in the classroom (behaviorist approaches), teachers are able to control instructional strategies

55 and integration into the curriculum, thus the technology provides students with new methods of obtaining and manipulating data (Means et al., 2003). Teachers can apply technology tools in a variety of disciplinary contexts, such as writing and editing with word processing software, graphing mathematical data, using desktop publishing software for the creation of classroom newspapers, accessing databases to obtain information, and employing instructional software used for a variety of purposes (Means et al.). Much research exists that determines the effectiveness of using technology in classrooms to promote active engagement (Siving-Kachala & Bialo, 2000). Original research reports and reviews of educational research published between 1990 and 1998 confirm that microcomputers and other educational technologies have beneficial effects on student achievement (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, p. 15). Using educational technology has led to a significant positive effect on student achievement (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo; Barnett, 2003). According to Sivin-Kachala and Bialo, positive effects exist in all major subject areas in preschool through higher education students of regular education and special education. A growing body of research shows, however, that the effectiveness of educational technology depends on a match between the goals of instruction, characteristic of the learners, the design of the software and technology implementation decisions made by educators (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, p. 15). Technology Proficient Teachers Teachers do not feel well prepared for the challenges in the classroom (McKenzie, 2005). For many teachers technology is one more delegated thing that they did not sign up for (McKenzie). Scott Noon designed a four-tier model to identify

56 technology proficiency levels regarding the integration of technology into their existing instructional practices (McKenzie). The four stages on Noons model are: (a) Preliterate; (b) Technocrat; (c) Technotraditionalist; and (d) Technoconstructivist (McKenzie). Preliterate teachers are those who are not using technology for either personal or instructional purposes (McKenzie). Technocrats are teachers who are able to experiment with the existing technologies; however, have not yet discovered curriculum usefulness (McKenzie). Technotraditionalists are teachers who are able to use technology proficiently to accomplish classroom tasks such as word processing, lesson planning, online/electronic gradebooks, and e-mail (McKenzie). Finally, the Technoconstructivists teachers use technology to transform their approaches to teaching and student learning within the classroom. Technoconstructivists implement online projects, virtual field trips, WebQuests, and virtual classrooms (McKenzie). The National Educational Technology Standards (NETS-T) and Performance Indicators for Teachers identify several indicators to define technologically proficient teachers (International Technology Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2008). The standards expect effective teachers to model and apply National Educational Technology Standards (NETS-S) as they design, implement, and assess student learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; enrich professional practice; and provide positive models for students, colleagues, and the community. (ISTE, 2008, 1) Proficiency levels vary from state to state (ISTE, 2008), but all standard measures are based on the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS). While many states have not officially adopted a definition of what a technology proficient teacher is, many

57 states rely on the NETS for both teachers and students to assess proficiency. The NETS specify a desired performance profile with respect to technology proficient teachers; however, schools and districts are able to examine the performance standards and design their own assessment to measure performance standards (ISTE). Active Engagement High levels of active engagement during lessons are associated with higher levels of achievement and student motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). A study conducted to examine the connection between teacher support and student engagement showed that students who had supportive teachers were more likely to be actively engaged than those without the support (Klem & Connell, 2004).Teachers assign students with assignments or tasks that have a level of personal meaning and relevance (Means et al., 2003). The tasks should be meaningful, resulting in a more complex, multidisciplinary assignment (Means et al.). When teachers assign more complex tasks students become more active in defining their own learning goals and regulating learning as a process (Means et al). When students work on tasks that are more complex, their learning becomes interactive and collaborative (Means et al.). When students collaborate, they are more motivated because they like to work together, thus providing active academic engagement. SivinKachala and Bialo (2000) supported the use of online telecommunication across classrooms for collaboration among students from different geographic regions to improve academic skills. Much literature surrounds how technology positively affects student learning; however, there are also contradicting studies stating integration of educational technology has little to no impact on student learning (Businesses Services Industry, 2005). Peake et

58 al. (2005) discovered a positive low correlation between teachers integration of technology into the curriculum and student achievement levels as noted on state mandated standardized testing. Additional research supports that technology is hypothesized to have a positive impact on student learning; however, research results indicate that no significant associations were found between a teachers level of integration and passage rates on standardized testing (Peake et al., 2005). Research supports the notion that more students have access to the internet; however, there has not been any significant research to support that the use of this tool has had significant impact on student performance on the Stanford Achievement Test administered in California (Gonsalves, 2005). Writing across disciplines is a concern addressed in primary, middle, and high schools through higher education (Jones, 2007). The use of blogging has recently been examined as a means to promote active academic engagement and a method to involve students in the learning process (Jones). Using blogs to promote writing in the classroom is beneficial to promoting active academic engagement. Blogs have become a potential instructional tool to promote writing in schools (Jones). Blogging is an effective method for teaching the writing process to second language learners (Jones). Blogs foster critical thinking skills that affect the quality of writing the students are able to produce. Blogging also alleviates some of the issues involving student trust and confidence involved in peer editing and revision (Jones). The use of computer technology is a provider for many conveniences (Ponschock, 2007). Additionally there are societal dependencies on computer technology (Ponschock). There is a social paradigm shift in the way that twenty-first century youth

59 communicate with one another and develop social relationships (Ponschock). Present day youth use social networking agents such as MYSPACE and internet blogging in place of previous discussions that used to occur on the street corner or playground (Ponschock). Using newspaper blogs to build a community is another area of research interest. Using newspaper blogs has an effect on both reading and reading behavior, and can build a sense of community (Roger, 2006). Littrell (2005) explored the possibility of using Web blogs in areas such as MYSPACE for literature journals replacing the handwritten journals for readers response with 10 eighth grade girls. Littrell examined the frequency and length of the writing as well as the perceptions about blogging and writing. The girls wrote longer and more frequently in blogs than in their handwritten journals (Littrell). The students reported enjoying the use of blogs versus traditional methods because of the ease of use and the freedom to express themselves without criticism (Littrell). This method provided motivation for students to develop their thinking about their current studies including literature read, which in turn moved them forward in their thinking and kept them writing (Littrell). Yazon (2004) conducted a 9-month case study in a high school in the Philippines to explore the experiences with technology research and project-based pedagogy with secondary students and teachers. No lectures on course content existed nor did instruction on how to use the elected technology (Yazon). The teachers met in small group settings and held individual conferences with students to guide them with their research process and clarify any misunderstandings (Yazon). The teacher allowed students to choose their own research projects, set their own timelines, and direct their selected course of research; however, one of the teachers in the classroom had to approve the research topic

60 and timeline (Yazon). Instances occurred where students presented their findings and received feedback on their research at its current state (Yazon). One finding indicated that many students worked outside of class to complete their research projects with their groups, which usually comprised of three to four students per group (Yazon). Students were able to view their learning as a process. Many students felt technology should be used as an aid and if it were not used in that fashion there was a loss of relevancy to what they were doing (Yazon). Data indicated this type of program provided a rich and practical learning environment for students where there was blending of technology design and science inquiry (Yazon). This project forced the students to engage in their learning and it allowed them to be creative problem solvers because students had to figure out the next step with little teacher instruction, merely guidance. The use of technology in education today is one of the most significant shifts (Means et al., 2003; Yazon). Sivin-Kachala and Bialo (2000) outlined several studies indicating a positive effect on student learning when incorporating technology into the curriculum (SivinKachala & Bialo). In studies that focused on reading and language arts, technology has proven to provide learning advantages (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). Advantages observed were in phonological awareness, vocabulary development, reading comprehension, and spelling (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). Evidence supported that students who used word processing software combined with carefully sequenced instruction during the writing process improved their writing significantly more than those who wrote to a real audience using the internet or e-mail (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). In mathematics, research has shown that students level of participation increases when technology is integrated (Sivin-

61 Kachala & Bialo). There are more opportunities for hands-on constructivist experiential activities, which links to students demonstrating a higher conceptual understanding of specified math topics (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). Using simulations in science education has led to increased understanding and a decrease of misconceptions related to science objectives and concepts (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000). Additionally, kindergartners who have used technology have benefited (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). Areas where kindergarten students have demonstrated improved conceptual knowledge are reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, and creativity (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). The special needs population has benefited as well (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo). Research surrounding the use of student learning with computers is fundamental in the development of present day classrooms to engage students in higher-order thinking skills and processes (Barnett, 2003; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000). As illustrated in the Apples Classrooms of Tomorrow project (ACOT), students used higher-order thinking skills beyond the expectation for their grade level (Barnett). In ACOT classrooms, technology was a pivotal element in the success rate of students. The technology was available to students anytime they needed to write, analyze data, develop presentation/projects, or research. All teachers were extensively trained (Barnett). Research through the ACOT project concluded that students used higher order thinking skills, students demonstrated the ability to collaborate more easily with peers, students stayed on task longer, and teachers belief systems began to change (Barnett). The Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project reinforces the ACOT findings. In the Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project, teachers asked students to complete authentic

62 assessments where teachers expected students to manipulate data (Barnett, 2003). The research revealed that the students in the Multimedia Project classrooms consistently outscored their peers who were in non-project classrooms (Barnett). The areas evaluated were understanding content, adapting their message to their intended audience, and applying principles of design in the format and layout of their brochures (Barnett, 23). When integrating technology into the curriculum, it is essential that teachers maintain a clear balance between learning with computers and learning from computers in combination with other instructional tools based on the objectives of the lesson (Barnett). Further research concluded that when students interact with peers that are more capable they achieve at higher levels (Brown, 2002). The use of discussion is integral to promoting student learning. Discussion is one method to promote the student interaction; however, many factors such as time, number of students, student abilities, and student willingness limit discussion (Brown). One alternative to foster student learning and discussion is using electronic discussion groups to provide effective learning environments and to promote social learning (Brown). Following is a brief discussion of how students learn from computers as shown in two longitudinal studies. The first study is the West Virginia Basic Skills Study. In this study, West Virginia began implementing computer technology one grade at a time beginning with the first grade (Barnett, 2003). Each year the state would add a grade until they reached grade six. Teachers received extensive training and the schools had the option to have a computer lab or computers within the classroom (Barnett). The schools were required to select software matching state content standards. The researchers followed students from first through sixth and found that the students who were learning

63 from computers had higher gains on statewide tests. Additionally, the students did better when computers were placed in the classroom versus a computer lab (Barnett). A second study, Project CHILD, conducted in Florida, placed computers in the classroom and provided extensive training to the teachers (Butzin, 2000). The research showed when students used computers as a tutor or to receive information, the computers contributed to higher scores in higher and lower achieving students, and the students had better discipline (Barnett, 2003). Constructivist learning is not limited to receiving knowledge; rather it includes building knowledge (Huang, 2006). The process of constructive learning is active. Students who are constructivists create their own interpretations, reflect on their own understanding, and apply their new knowledge (Huang). The use of hands-on-projects has proven to increase motivation and increase student involvement (Huang). Learning communities grounded in constructivism allow learners immediate knowledge within a social context (DePaula, 2004; Huang). In this environment, the role of language changes, allowing the learner to shape and extend his or her thinking. Social networks, another form of technology integration, allow students the opportunity to integrate social behaviors with their academic instruction (DePaula). Technology research pedagogy can change the teaching practices and learning approaches in classrooms, and a technologyenriched curriculum can be designed to help equip twenty-first century students to become both critical thinkers and leaders (Yazon, 2004). It is important to provide methods of instruction that prove meaningful to students (Sturgess, 2006).

64 Barriers to Technology Integration Technology is a national initiative under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; however, many teachers are still unwilling, unaccepting, or unable to integrate technology into their curriculum (Klamik, 2005). Attitude is one factor that inhibits teachers abilities and willingness to integrate technologies, on any scale, into their classrooms (Klamik). Little research is available on how teachers acquire attitudes and beliefs as well as the influence those beliefs have on technology integration into the classroom (Bigatel, 2004). There is a growing interest in the implementation of technology into the classroom, yet there is limited research to depict the importance of integrating technology in the classroom to promote active academic engagement. There is a need for more research regarding the integration of technology into the curriculum and it is necessary to examine this research to understand existing uses and integration practices (Apsler, Formica, Fraster, & McMahan, 2006). Teachers who integrate technology into their teaching are both skilled in the practice and possess high comfort levels of technology usage and integration in the classroom (Smith, 2006). Technology competency does not promote usage unless teachers feel comfortable with the integration of technology (Smith). Most public schools have internet access; however, teachers are reluctant to integrate technology into their classrooms (Herndon, 2006). Research illustrates teacher attitudes are a strong predictor for computer integration. Many conditions, including time, resources, access, and training obstructs successful technology integration (Herndon).

65 Many teachers implement technology into the classroom at least one time per week allowing students to demonstrate mastery of skills, to help children express themselves, or to allow children to practice skills not previously taught (White, 2004). Teachers who have higher levels of constructivist practices are more likely to use computers than those with lower levels of constructivist practices (Peake et al., 2005). Teacher attitudes and administrator behaviors affect levels of technology integration into the classroom (Hardin, 2006). Many principals view technology as a support or supplemental tool to classroom instruction. Oftentimes leaders feel their role in technology integration was that of a provider of technology funds (Hardin). With the influx of technology into K-12 classrooms, it is an expectation that teachers will successfully integrate technology into their curriculum. A significant impact to teachers willingness to incorporate technology into the curriculum is the level of professional development and support received (White, 2004). There are significant gaps in the literature illustrating professional development programs that support teachers in technology integration, which significantly influences teachers attitudes (White). Professional development, or lack of professional development, is a theme associated with negative attitudes toward integrating technology into the curriculum. Professional development experiences usually center on computer skills, not the implementation within the classroom (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2000). Therefore, a lack of professional development and professional development serves as a barrier to technology integration. Examining the long-term effects of professional development that models constructivist learning environments and integration of technology within their

66 environment is necessity to facilitate positive learning environments that promote active engagement for all students (NCES). The literature illustrates significant differences exist when measuring teacher attitudes (Green, 2006; Smith, 2006). Teachers who integrate technology into their teaching are both skilled and possess high comfort levels (Green; Smith). Teachers attitudes toward computers are not related to skill and ability level with computers (Green; Smith). Teachers with higher levels of anxiety were less likely to incorporate technology into their curriculum (Green; Smith). Time and resources. According to Steinhoff (2007), time and the lack of time was the most frequently identified barrier to change. Compounding the teachers struggle with time is the reality that close to a third of the students day is spent on non-academic activity (recess, lunch, expressive arts, arrival/dismissal) (Steinhoff, p. 145). Many teachers agree that much is expected with limited resources available (Steinhoff). In addition, trainings are too few and rushed (Steinhoff). Change and resistance to change. Most individuals are pretty positive and open to change until that change occurs within ones organization (Steinhoff, 2007)). Resistance to change refers to forces acting against successful implementation of change (Foster, 2008, p. 2). Teachers are a classic example of this because teachers become frustrated when students are not receptive to learning; however, teachers are often resistant with respect to instructional innovations, new technologies, and collaboration among peers (Foster; Steinhoff). People are creatures of habit and once teachers become accustomed to a particular style or method of teaching or reaching their students they are resistant to changes (Steinhoff). Change forces people to move from familiar to unfamiliar territories

67 (Foster; Steinhoff). Sometimes individuals resist change because there is a conflict with personal interest or it may be difficult to find a reason for the resistance (Foster). People have the need to feel in control (Steinhoff). Additionally, people feel threatened by changes in how things are structured and how individuals are evaluated (Foster; Steinhoff). People resist new changes because they feel threatened and the commitment to new programs may suggest that the old ways of doing things were wrong, when in fact they were simply ineffective (Foster; Steinhoff, 2007). Gaps in the Literature Virtual learning in K-12 is following in the footsteps of the expansion of learning opportunities similar to higher education (Rice, 2006). Implementation of the varying degrees and types of technology has occurred with a limited research base and the research available is focused on higher education and adult distance learning (Rice). A lack of quality studies regarding distance education exists; however, the research base continues to grow to include both comparative studies and studies that try to identify factors connected to quality instruction (Bernard, Abrami, Lou, & Borokhovski, 2004). K-12 virtual components or blended learning approaches are needed to provide a challenging environment for the average to high-level learners (Brown, 2002; Rice, 2006). Virtual learning in K-12 is following in the footsteps of the expansion of learning opportunities similar to what is seen in higher education and corporate America (Rice). Implementation of the varying degrees and types of technology has occurred with a limited research base and the research available is typically focused on higher education and adult distance learning (Rice).

68 There is a lack of quality studies in general regarding distance education, but the research base continues to grow to include both comparative studies as well as those studies that try to identify the factors connected to quality instruction (Rice, 2006).The focal point has been mostly on higher education (Brown). Gaps noted in the literature indicate that teachers consider and use technology as a tool rather than a means of active engagement among students in controlling their own learning process (Means et al., 2003). Teachers are resistant to change, particularly when it directly affects methods they are expected to utilize in reaching students (Steinhoff, 2007). People, teachers in particular, have the need to feel in control (Steinhoff). People resist new changes because they feel threatened and the commitment to new programs may suggest that the old ways of doing things were wrong, when in fact they were simply ineffective (Foster, 2008; Steinhoff). Extensive research exists which discusses technology tools integrated into the K12 classroom; however, minimal research currently exists about the effective use of technology tools to promoting active academic engagement for all students in K-12 classrooms; rather the focus is embedded on utilizing technology tools as extension activities provided for some students. This study is specific to providing active academic engagement opportunities for all students at any point in the school day rather than selected students upon completion of current tasks Conclusion Educational technology is currently experiencing substantial growth, and transformation of education with the existing technologies that encompass it (JIME: Educational Technology, 2003; Zargari & MacDonald, 1994). Current research discusses

69 the use of available technologies (JIME: Educational Technology; Zargari & MacDonald); however, the transition from tools to active engagement is nonexistent. The research is vastly popular in the business sector and in higher education; however, limited research is available in K-12 schools (Bonk & Graham, 2006; Watson, 2007). Using technology in the classroom is one method presently used to begin a shift from traditional methods of instruction to more constructivistscompatible instruction in some cases (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). There are teachers who still prefer behaviorist approaches because it is reliable and structured. Resistance to change is one barrier preventing an empirical shift from behaviorism to constructivism. The use of educational technologies is a new method of instruction that needs to be studied to examine the effectiveness on student learning (Askun, 2007). Leaders in the last 20 years have encouraged the use of educational technology in K-12 classrooms. Global demands emphasize the need for technology in education, and the old way of doing things no longer works. As a result, organizational change is needed (Bonk & Graham, 2006). Standards in technology performances designed for teachers and students have required the increase of educational technology in classrooms to enhance student learning (Shaunessy, 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has provided additional funds to assist integration of technology into the curriculum by 2006; however, many districts still lack the availability of resources and professional development for teachers to assist in the integration of technology (United States Department of Education, 2007). Sometimes traditional classrooms are overwhelming due to all of the activity and noise that occur. The traditional classroom learning environment is teacher-centered. In

70 student-centered environments, dynamic learning takes place with an accurate and active exchange of information and ideas (Carpenter, 2006). A student who is not comfortable in a traditional learning environment oftentimes flourishes in an alternative learning environment (Carpenter). Students are motivated and have the opportunity to reflect before taking the risk of speaking aloud in these environments (Carpenter). The structural foundation in which a student learns reflects the fostering of structural dependence needed by that student (Carpenter). When the environment is student-centered, students participation increases (Carpenter; Correiro et al., 2008). The atmosphere of the online community is one in which communication can occur safely, trust is valued and promotes a spirit of adventure (Carpenter, p. 33). Because the environment is safe, students are willing to take risks. When students take risks they become more confident and know they have classmates to rely on if their risk turns to failure. In traditional classrooms, the risk turning to failure could lead to humiliation, which is difficult to overcome, especially during adolescent years. The integration of technology into the classrooms is likely to be unsuccessful unless there is an understanding of how teachers attitudes and beliefs affect the implementation of such tools across disciplines (Pederson, 2006). Understanding teachers as constructivists is necessary to understand where K-12 education is headed. A significant discovery was the importance of providing a meaningful learning environment when establishing curriculum (Sturgess). Incorporating technology tools into K-12 classrooms will afford students the opportunity to become active learners and assume some control over the depth and complexity they wish to study a concept (Tomlinson, 2004). For education to shift from the old way of doing things to a more constructivist

71 approach teachers and leaders must acknowledge antiquated methods will no longer work (Bonk & Graham, 2006) and be willing to make changes within the buildings they serve.

72

Summary Available technological infrastructures located in K-12 schools have seen substantial advancements. However, use of technologies that promote integration and hence increase student development is still at a low level (Pederson, 2006). With the influx of technology into K-12 classrooms, it is an expectation that teachers will successfully integrate technology into the curriculum. The need for additional professional development is one factor illustrated in the literature as a contributing factor inhibiting teachers from integrating technology into their curriculum. Changing the way teachers think and use technology tools to reach students at a higher level and providing more challenging tasks is fundamental to student success (Tomlinson, 2004). The message, the old way of doing things will no longer work (Bonk & Graham, 2006, p. 157), appeared throughout the literature. Teachers who lack confidence in technology integration are more likely to avoid integration of technology all together (Green, 2006). This mixed method study explored how teachers integrate educational technology tools into the classroom to promote active academic engagement. The study also explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Changing the way teachers think and use technology tools to reach students at a higher level and providing more challenging tasks is fundamental to student success (Tomlinson, 2004). The shift from traditional methods of instruction to more constructivist approaches will take time. The research design and methodology will be discussed in Chapter 3.

73 CHAPTER 3: METHOD This mixed method study explored how teachers utilize educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement for students of all ability levels. The study also explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the study explored particular barriers to technology integration and specific pedagogical approaches associated with integration. The primary independent variable was methods and techniques teachers use to integrate online technology tools into the classroom. The primary dependent variable was active engagement within the classroom. Moderating variables, defined for the purpose of potential influences on dependent variables, included gender, age, race, years teaching, number of hours of technology integration, types of professional development, and available resources. Chapter 3 provides an in-depth discussion of the research method used in this studys research design, the feasibility of the design, the geographic location of the study, the instruments that will be used, the data collection process, the data analysis, and the validity of the research. This mixed method study interviewed 20 technology proficient teachers to complete the qualitative section of the mixed method study. The researcher worked in collaboration with the school district technology department to identify 20 technology proficient teachers based on results obtained from the Texas Teachers STaR Chart. The study was open to 400 technologically proficient teachers across the feeder pattern for completion of the quantitative section. The teachers participating in the study were regular education classroom teachers in one suburban school district feeder pattern in

74 north central Texas. The researcher requested the participation of staff members in consideration of an average sample size; however, the completion of surveys and interviews were voluntary. Research Method and Design Appropriateness Well-designed research can provide valid and reliable data that may lead to change (Rauen, Chulay, Bridges, Vollman, & Arbour, 2008). Research designs can be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method approaches (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006). A mixed method study design was used to explore how teachers integrate online educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement among all students in the classroom. The researcher explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the researcher explored particular barriers to technology integration. A mixed method design was selected because the data collected allowed the researcher to examine themes in response to the research questions. The mixed method design gave value to both qualitative and quantitative data, and the researcher viewed the data equally to gain a deeper understanding of the research problem (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al.; Simon, 2006). A mixed method design was appropriate for this study because the combination of the two designs led to a powerful mix (Creswell; Gay et al.; Simon). The mixed method design allowed exploration of themes within different school cultures in comparison to one another. The methodology for this study used a triangulation mixed method design (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Simon, 2006). Triangulation of the data was appropriate for this study because the researcher qualified quantitative data to explore

75 themes directly related to integration of educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement across three teacher populations (K-6; 7-8; 9-12). A qualitative approach was used to explore how technology proficient teachers effectively use technology for engaging students in the K-12 classroom. Posing this question qualitatively provided the research with a more in depth understanding of how teachers actively engage students. With the qualitative design, the research explored how technologically proficient teachers use educational technology for active engagement among students academically. The research also explored perceived barriers to technology integration using a qualitative design. The qualitative design allowed the research to examine and analyze various perspectives on the topic (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Simon, 2006). Collecting quantitative data allowed the research to analyze results in search of trends (Creswell, p. 559). The research also used a quantitative design to explore what types of tools technologically proficient teachers use for student engagement in an academic setting. The data gathered from both the quantitative and qualitative research were analyzed to determine if the data yielded similar or dissimilar results (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Simon, 2006). After data collection, the researcher merged the data and analyzed the results to ascertain a better understanding of the research problem (Creswell; Gay et al.; Simon). This research study did not lend itself to a quantitative only design because quantitative research studies allow for researcher-controlled environments under research-controlled conditions and no part of this research study allowed for researchercontrolled environments. Additionally, a qualitative design was appropriate because it

76 allowed exploration of two research questions: (a) How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology for active engagement among students in the K-12 classroom? and (b) What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement? While examining the research problem, the researcher explored to find a central phenomenon. Exploration allowed the researcher to learn more from participants due to limited information located within the literature (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Hunt, 2007; Simon, 2006). Qualitative research was appropriate to this study because the research focused on descriptions and explanations (Creswell, 2004). Gathering quantitative data allowed the research to explore two research questions: (a) What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration? and (b) What effect, if any, does the application type impact the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? Gathering quantitative data for this mixed method research study allowed examination of data to qualify to explore themes. Using a quantitative design for this research study was appropriate because quantitative designs require a literature review at the beginning of the study (Creswell, 2004). The literature gathered helped the researcher understand gaps in the literature and provided direction for further research development. Research that uses mixed method research designs merges quantitative and qualitative methods into one research study (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). This mixed method research study unified qualitative and quantitative approaches into a single research archetype for corresponding application of both methods (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie). Teddlie (2005) noted that educational scholars usually recognize the

77 necessity of using different data types to answer research questions accurately. Mixed methods research has several advantages. The research is strengthened is the first advantage (Hunt, 2007). Using multiple methods of research helps the researcher see the problem from all sides (Hunt). Finally, in a mixed method approach the researcher views all available data in numbers and minimizes the weaknesses of individual designs (Hunt). Method This mixed method research study explored how teachers in one suburban school district feeder pattern in north central Texas integrate educational technology tools into the classroom to promote active academic engagement and if teaching practices and methodologies influence willingness to integrate such tools. In its proposed state, this mixed method study interviewed 20 technology proficient teachers to complete the qualitative section of the study. The study was open to 400 technologically proficient teachers across the feeder pattern for completion of the quantitative section. The number of participants changed due to lack of participation among staff members within the school district. The pilot study included seven fifth and seven sixth grade teachers for the qualitative portion and 25 (5-6 grade) teachers for the quantitative portion from one intermediate school in one school district located in north central Texas. To triangulate the data, the researcher allowed specials teachers, math/science teachers, and language arts/social studies teachers to participate. The teachers selected for the pilot study were randomly selected and were used because they were easily accessible. The results of the pilot study were examined to determine instrument validity and reliability and to determine if either survey instrument needed revision. The interview instrument was

78 administered in a semi-structured face-to-face format that remained open for one week. Individuals who did not complete the pilot study interview were eliminated from the pilot study. The participants in the pilot study were not included in the actual study results. For the pilot study, semi-structured interviews (see Appendix A) were administered on a volunteer basis to participating technologically proficient teachers in one school in one suburban school district in north central Texas. The interviews collected confidential data centering on the integration of technology tools to foster active academic engagement. For the quantitative phase, a structured survey instrument was administered using Survey Monkey (see Appendix B) to the same set of teachers. The pilot study data were collected and analyzed using a self-created interview instrument to test the reliability of the instrument and to make adjustments as needed. The data were organized in a systematic fashion to keep the researcher focused on the research purpose and questions (Simon, 2006). The research questions were written in such a way to allow the research to build upon theory and produce new theories (Simon). Data allowed for the challenge of existing theories and describe any phenomenon or themes discovered (Simon). Research Questions The purpose of this mixed method study was to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. The research also explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the research explored particular barriers to technology integration. As a result, the research questions were designed to explore how

79 teachers integrate online technology tools within their classroom. Four research questions will drive the study. The research questions that drove this study were: Research Question 1: How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology to engage students in the K-12 classroom? Technologically proficient teachers are defined as those teachers who know best instructional practices and integrate technology into the classroom one to five times per week; either teacher led or student centered. Research Question 2: What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement? Research Question 3: What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration? Research Question 4: What effect, if any, does the application type impact the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? Each of the research questions open for exploration share a linkage to one another. In Research Question 1 the researcher examined how technologically proficient teachers incorporate technology tools to foster the learning environment on a daily or weekly basis. Questions 2 through 4 examined will allow the researcher to examine the data from a different angle. To provide the school district with further recommendations on how to encourage the use of technology within the classroom, the researcher will examine specific techniques or methods teachers use or do not use, potential barriers, and any effects of technology integration. It is important to examine the effect the application type has on the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active

80 engagement. It is imperative all students remain actively engaged to receive the most from their learning environment. Hypotheses The hypotheses includes a null and an alternative hypothesis concerning what effect, if any, the application type impacts the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement. The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses are as follows: H01: Technologically proficient teachers do not integrate a variety of computer applications and internet based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project based learning activities. Ha1: Technologically proficient teachers integrate a variety of computer applications and internet based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project based learning activities. H02: Technologically proficient teachers do not use a variety of Web materials, computer applications, and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week. Ha2: Technologically proficient teachers use a variety of Web materials, computer applications, and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week. H03: Technologically proficient teachers do not perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications), administrative support, and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration. Ha3: Technologically proficient teachers perceive lack of resources (computers

81 and computer applications), administrative support, and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration. H04: The technology application type, such as blogging and podcasting has no impact on a students level of academic engagement. Ha4: The technology application type, such as blogging and podcasting, has an impact on a students level of academic engagement. It was important to examine each of these hypotheses in relation to how teachers integrate technology into their daily instructional routines. Examining each hypothesis allowed the researcher and the school district to collaborate to provide more opportunities for teachers to integrate a variety of technologies into the curriculum with fewer barriers. Population The population defined for the purpose of this study was limited to one feeder pattern in one school district located in north central Texas. In its proposed state, this mixed method study interviewed 20 technologically proficient teachers to complete the qualitative section of the study. The researcher worked in collaboration with technology campus facilitators to identify technology proficient teachers in each building. Five participants from each building were randomly selected and all participants were solicited to partake in the research study. In the actual study, only 48 participants opted to participate. Because the number of participants was low and results of the pilot study, the separate survey/interview instruments were merged into one instrument (see Appendix I). The population was selected based on the convenience of teachers. The sample population was obtained using non-probability sampling. Non-probability sampling was used because individuals were available, convenient, and represent some characteristic

82 the investigator seeks to study (Creswell, 2004, p. 164). The triangulation of the data was measured using three populations of participants, K-6 grade teachers; 7-8 grade teachers; and 9-12 grade teachers. The teachers participating in the study were regular education classroom teachers in one suburban school district feeder pattern in north central Texas. The researcher requested the participation of staff members to ensure reliability and validity in consideration of an average sample size; however, interviews were voluntary. The researcher obtained approval from the necessary school district personnel to conduct the study (see Appendix C). Upon approval from the school district, the researcher sent a request to building principals who have elected to participate in the research study (see Appendix D). Once the study was approved, the researcher sent a general e-mail to staff members of each school (see Appendix E and Appendix F) notifying the participants of the research study and the need to complete the Informed Consent (see Appendix G) prior to granting survey access. Sampling Frame The population defined for the purpose of this study was limited to one feeder pattern of K-12 regular education classroom teachers. In its proposed state, the study participants included 20 technologically proficient teachers in one suburban school district in North Central Texas for the qualitative portion and 400 technologically proficient teachers in the feeder pattern for the quantitative section. This population was selected based on convenience and the availability of teachers. Each teacher was solicited to partake in the research study (see Appendix E). Non-probability sampling was selected because individuals were readily available, convenient, and represented technologically

83 proficient characteristics under exploration (Creswell, 2004); therefore, the sample population was obtained using non-probability sampling. Although the sample size was rather large in the proposed state, only 48 participants opted to participate in the actual study. Qualitative Sampling Qualitative data was collected using non-probability sampling. Upon receipt of individual signed consent forms, the researcher randomly selected and notified individuals (see Appendix F) to complete the qualitative interview questions to obtain In the proposed state of the study, the researcher randomly selected five participants from the elementary school level (K-4), five participants from the intermediate school level (56), five participants from the middle school level (7-8), and five participants from the high school level (9-12). Due to lack of participation, the qualitative sampling included fewer than 20 in the sample, which adversely affected the purpose of gathering in-depth information about technology integration methods used to increase active academic engagement. To resolve this problem, the researcher merged the quantitative and qualitative instruments into one allowing all individuals to partake in both sections of the study. Quantitative Sampling Quantitative data was collected using non-probability sampling. Upon receipt of individual signed consent forms, the researcher randomly selected and notified individuals (see Appendix F) to complete an online survey (Survey Monkey). The researcher provided individuals with a specific survey link. Once the researcher posted and opened the survey, participants were notified via email (see Appendix F). The survey

84 was open for two weeks with one weekly reminder to all participants that the survey was open for completion. Due to lack of participation, the qualitative sampling included fewer than 400 in the sample, which adversely affected the purpose of gathering in-depth information about technology integration methods used to increase active academic engagement. To resolve this problem, the researcher merged the quantitative and qualitative instruments into one allowing all individuals to partake in both sections of the study. Informed Consent Informed consent is a statement that participants sign prior to participating in any research study (Creswell, 2004). Study participation was voluntary and teachers received an informed consent letter and authorization form (see Appendix G) describing the nature of the study, the risk and benefits, the right to withdraw and withhold information, and researcher contact information. Participants were randomly assigned a code name to use on the demographics questionnaire and when taking the survey. The participants were asked to return a completed demographics questionnaire and the signed consent as proof of their voluntary involvement in the study. The informed consent guaranteed human subjects the right to withdrawal from the study at any time during the study. When participants signed the consent form, they acknowledged participation in the study and understood their rights were protected (Creswell, 2004). The researcher informed prospective participants of the study (see Appendix G), the nature of the participation, and asked for written consent. The use of e-mail was used to initiate contact. Participants signed an informed consent form (see Appendix G) that explained the study, the use of interview and secondary data, and request agreement to

85 participate in the study at the beginning of data gathering interviews. Informed consent forms were delivered to campus secretaries or principals and were distributed to teachers. The informed consent presented the teachers with a clear understanding of what the research study entailed and any risks posed. The informed consent communicated to the participants that they would complete an electronic survey or interview and their participation was voluntary. Individuals were made aware that if they choose to withdraw from the study they could do so without penalty or harm. The researcher informed participants that their name would not be disclosed to any outside party with the potential of publication. By signing the informed consent form (see Appendix G), participants understood they may decline to participate or withdraw from the study with no consequences, their identity would be kept anonymous, permission must be granted to digitally record interviews, participant was 18 years old or older, and data would be stored in a secure and locked area in the researchers office for a period of 3 years and then will be destroyed. Signing of the consent form acknowledged that participants understood the nature of the study, potential risks, and how participant identities were kept confidential. Confidentiality Confidentiality oftentimes involves using codes or pseudonyms in an attempt to conceal identities (Gay et al., 2006). Identity in this mixed method study was protected with pseudonyms to hide individual identities, spare embarrassment, and unwanted publicity. Participants were protected from any harm that may have ensued from the research study under protection of confidentiality. The researcher assigned individual teachers an alphanumeric number (S01, S02, etc.) to represent individual schools (see

86 Appendix H). Each participant was assigned an alphanumeric number (P01, P02) that was asked in the survey upon completion to identify individual participants. Keeping information private ensures that staff is not privy to interview conversations, notes, or any other research records that may contain a participants identity information. All data was stored at all times to ensure privacy. No survey instruments required any teachers name; however, each school was letter coded (see Appendix H). Each survey had blanks for participants to enter grade level and subject taught. A private home office provided a secure location for maintaining records. Finally, a password-protected computer housed interview conversations and e-mail recordings. The data was analyzed and will be stored for 3 years and then will be shredded. Geographic Location The participants work and residential locations are in a suburban community of Fort Worth, Texas. Fort Worth is a large metropolitan area located in north central Texas with approximately 535,000 people. The participants are located in one school district in a northern suburb of Fort Worth and are easily accessible by car. Data Collection For this study, qualitative data was collected using semi-structured interviews consisting of open-ended questions (see Appendix A). The study collected confidential data about the individuals background information (demographic data), methods of technology integration, frequency of technology integration, and questions related to theories (i.e. constructivism and behaviorism). The data were collected on an individual basis. Each interview question was designed to avoid researcher bias and to encourage participants to answer the questions honestly. A sample size of 20 was chosen for the

87 qualitative section. Feeder pattern employees from one school district were selected to help ensure homogeneous sampling. Upon receipt of individual signed consent forms, the researcher randomly selected and notified individuals (see Appendix F) to complete an online survey (Survey Monkey). The researcher provided individuals with a specific survey link. The survey was open for 2 weeks with one weekly reminder to all participants that the survey is open for completion. In the proposal state, the anticipated population size was 400 K-12 teachers. The sample size of 400 individuals for the quantitative section and the feeder pattern employees was selected because of homogeneous sampling to include teachers in one school district to partake in the research. Because many members of the selected group chose not to participate, the study will included fewer than 400 in the sample. This low sample size may adversely affect the purpose of gathering in-depth information about technology integration methods used to increase active academic engagement. Instrumentation The research instrumentation for this mixed method study used semi-structured face-to-face interviews and survey questions to gather data to measure how teachers integrate technology tools into their classrooms to promote active academic engagement. The researcher has developed interview questions to help answer the research questions. The interviews consisted of 40 qualitative questions and 43 Likert-type scale questions for the quantitative section (see Appendix A and Appendix B) exploring how teachers integrate technology to promote active academic engagement and barriers keeping them from integrating technology into the curriculum. Face-to- face interviews were used to

88 gather responses to interview questions for the qualitative section and an online survey was made available to the feeder pattern teachers. Each participant answered the same initial questions; however, the spawning of potential new questions was designed from the results of the original questions. Survey Instrument Development The researcher developed both a qualitative and quantitative instrument to administer to K-12 teachers. The researcher self-created the instruments because there was not a previously created one to answer the established research questions. During development of the survey instruments, the researcher created a table aligning the research questions with the corresponding survey questions (see Appendix F). Research Question 1: How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology to engage students in the K-12 classroom? Technologically proficient teachers will be defined as those teachers who know best instructional practices and integrate technology into the classroom one to five times per week, either teacher led or student centered. The researcher has created four qualitative questions to help answer this question. Research Question 2: What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement? The researcher has developed nine qualitative questions and ten quantitative questions to help answer this question. Research Question 3: What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration? The researcher has developed five qualitative questions and five quantitative questions to help answer this question. Finally, Research Question 4 examines constructivists and behaviorists teaching approaches and asks: What effect, if any, does the application type affect the level of technology integration into the classroom to

89 promote active engagement? The researcher has developed eight quantitative and one qualitative survey questions to help answer this question. This study was preceded by a pilot study to test the validity and reliability of the survey instrument being used. Using a mixed method design during the pilot study assisted in validating the research instrument. Validity and Reliability Threats to internal validity are problems that threaten drawing correct inferences that arise because of the experimental procedures or the experiences of participants (Creswell, 2002, p. 325). Threats to external validity are problems that threaten drawing correct inferences from the sample data to other persons, settings, and past and future situations (Creswell, p. 326). One threat to internal validity was mortality. When individuals drop out during the experiment for any number of reasons, drawing conclusions from scores may be difficult (Creswell, p. 326). The threat to internal validity was eliminated because the researcher ensured a large sample (Creswell; Gay et al., 2006; Simon, 2006). Validity was measured based on a well-designed study, alert participants, the ability to make useful predictions from the results, and information that is useful and adds to the body of knowledge. The research was validated using triangulation. Triangulation is the process of corroborating evidence from different individuals, types of data, or methods of data collection in descriptions and themes in qualitative research (Creswell, 2004, p. 280). The triangulation of the data was measured using three populations of participants, K-6 grade teachers; 7-8 grade teachers; and 9-12 grade teachers. The data was analyzed searching for common themes in responses. This method of triangulation was used across the feeder pattern for the quantitative section as well. Member checking

90 was used to verify validity. In addition to triangulation, the researcher used member checking. Member checking is a process where the researcher asks study participants to check the accuracy (Creswell, 2004; Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006). Member checking allowed the researcher to take the study back to participants and ask them to check the accuracy of the report. Participants are asked about many aspects of the study, such as whether the description is complete and realistic, if the themes are accurate to include, and if the interpretations are fair and representative of those that can be made (Creswell, 2004, p. 280). Reliability means dependability and trustworthiness (Gay et al., 2006, p. 139). The researcher tested for equivalent-forms reliability, which is where two forms of the survey instrument produce similar scores from a single group of test takers (Creswell, 2004; Gay et al.). The researcher randomly selected 25 teachers from a local intermediate campus (due to convenience), administered two forms of the survey and interview instruments, and examined the results. The researcher ensured reliability by avoiding unclear or ambiguous questions, having standard administration practices, and alert participants. Internal consistency reliability was used in which each participant completed the study instrument (Creswell, 2004). Pilot Study This study was preceded by a pilot study to test the validity and reliability of the survey instrument being used. Using a mixed method design during the pilot study assisted in validating the research instrument. The pilot study included seven fifth and seven sixth grade teachers for the qualitative portion and 25 (5-6 grade) teachers for the quantitative portion from one intermediate school in one school district located in north

91 central Texas. To triangulate the data, the researcher allowed specials teachers, math/science teachers, and language arts/social studies teachers to participate. The teachers selected for the pilot study were selected randomly and were used because they were easily accessible. The results of the pilot study were used to determine instrument validity and reliability and to determine if either survey instrument needed revision. The interview instrument was administered in a semi-structured face-to-face format that remained open for one week. Individuals who did not complete the pilot study interview were eliminated from the pilot study. The participants in the pilot study were not included in the actual study results. Upon approval of the research study, the researcher sent an e-mail to staff members at one local intermediate school in one school district located in north central Texas (see Appendix J). The researcher established a deadline for all interested individuals to reply. Once individuals responded, the researcher randomly selected 14 fifth and sixth grade teachers (7 of each grade level) for the qualitative portion of the study and 25 (5th-6th grade) teachers for the quantitative portion. The researcher opened the quantitative survey in Survey Monkey for 1 week and conducted semi-structured face-to-face interviews for the collection of qualitative data. Once the data was collected, it was triangulated to assess for validity. The data was triangulated across the three populations, including specials teachers, math/science teachers, and language arts/social studies teachers Data Analysis Once the data was collected, it underwent preliminary analysis. Both data sets underwent a computer-generated analysis using Survey Monkey. There were nine

92 questions/statements on the quantitative survey tailored specifically toward assessment of the level of academic engagement. Teachers responded to a Likert-type scale with never or very rarely, rarely, sometimes, often, and very often or always to assess student levels of academic engagement. The qualitative and quantitative data underwent a computergenerated analysis using Survey Monkey. Once the data was coded, it underwent a preliminary exploratory analysis. After exploration of the data, the data was examined to identify themes. The data was analyzed to find a variety of themes including ordinary, unexpected, hard-to-classify, and major and minor themes. The themes were layered to identify interconnected levels of themes (Creswell, 2004). Once the data was coded, analyzed for themes, and layered with interconnected themes, the findings were reported. A narrative discussion was used to explain the results and the findings were visually displayed using figures and tables comparing groups on the themes uncovered in the research. The data underwent analysis. After analysis, the data were represented and interpreted. Interpretation means that the researcher steps back and forms some larger meaning about the phenomenon based on personal views and/or comparisons with past studies (Creswell, 2004, pp. 277-78). The interpretations contained references to the literature from past studies to show how the findings either support or contradict prior studies. In the interpretations, limitations and future research possibilities were identified.

93

Summary Qualitative research seeks to answer how or why questions (Simon, 2006). In case study research, the questions are targeted to a limited number of events or conditions and their interrelationships (Simon, 2006, p. 25). The methods to conduct a mixed method research study determining how teachers integrate technology tools into the classroom to promote active academic engagement may provide a rich source of data to understand why teachers do not implement technology into their curriculum. The data was collected using semi-structured face-to-face interviews including open-ended questions for the qualitative section and a Likert-type scale survey for the quantitative section. The study included semi-structured interviews and collected confidential data in examination of the individuals background information (demographic data), methods of technology integration, types of technology integration, frequency of technology integration, and questions related to theories (i.e. constructivism and behaviorism). The data was collected on an individual basis. A mixed method study design was appropriate for this study because the researcher was seeking to discover how teachers implement technology tools to promote active academic engagement and potential barriers associated with those teachers who do not integrate technology tools to promote active academic engagement. Chapter 4 will discuss the results of the study.

94

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS The previous chapters have outlined the background of the study, reviewed the relevant literature, and described the selected methodology for the study. Chapter 4 describes the data gathered following the methodology outlined in Chapter 3. The purpose of the exploratory mixed method study was to understand how K-12 teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. Academic engagement for this study was defined as students engaged in learning to acquire new content knowledge. Additionally, the study explored what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. The research also explored particular barriers to technology integration. Chapter 1 presented the research background and the principal nature of the study. Chapter 2 presented the literature review, which discussed the historical overview, which included the early stages and advancements of educational technology, education technology today, and alternative learning environments, and the impact of using technology for learning. In addition, the literature review contained a discussion of the theoretical framework encompassing behaviorism and constructivism. Included in the literature review was also a discussion of the current state of knowledge and barriers to integration. Chapter 3 provided a description of the mixed method design used in the study and the processes used to collect data. The purpose of Chapter 4 is to answer the research questions and provide the outcome of each research question through the data collection process and analysis procedures. Chapter 4 presents the results of how teachers integrate online educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement, what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active

95 academic engagement, and particular barriers to technology integration. Prior to the study, a pilot study was conducted to assess the validity and reliability of the survey instrument designed to explore each research question. Once the pilot study was completed and the survey instrument was realigned, the actual study was conducted. The findings from the study supported either the null or the alternative hypothesis in relation to each research question. Research Questions Each research question was tailored to either the qualitative or the quantitative portion of the research study. The first research question applied to the qualitative portion of the study. The question was, Research Question 1: How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology to engage students in the K-12 classroom? Technologically proficient teachers are defined as those teachers who know best instructional practices and integrate technology into the classroom one to five times per week; either teacher led or student centered. Research Question 2: What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement? Research Question 3: What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration? Research Question 4: What effect, if any, does Web-based application type impact the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement?

96 Pilot Study Prior to the study, a pilot study was conducted to test the validity of the data collection instrument and ensure reliability of the instrument. The pilot study provided the researcher a guide to data collection for the actual study. Cooper and Schindler (2003) stated, A pilot test is conducted to detect weaknesses in design and instrumentation (p. 86). Sixty teachers from one intermediate campus were solicited, with 25 teachers returning consent forms. Of the 25 teachers who returned consent forms, 11 elected to participate. The quantitative instrument allowed the teachers to check the frequency in which they use specified technologies and identify constructivist or behaviorist teaching characteristics. The teachers solicited for the qualitative portion were difficult to obtain due to the nature of the study. Many teachers were not willing to conduct face-to-face interviews due to fear of getting into trouble for not using technology to the degree expected. Because of these discomforts, only six teachers participated in the pilot study, validating the instrument. The teachers completing the quantitative survey were sent a link to access and complete the survey using Survey Monkey. The qualitative portion of the pilot study was expected to be conducted using semi-structured face-to-face interviews from the participants during a specified appointment time agreed upon by the researcher and the interviewee; however, the participants did not feel comfortable completing face-to-face recorded interviews. To accommodate the teachers and alleviate stresses placed on them by face-to-face interviews, the researcher created an online questionnaire that was placed into Survey Monkey. Because of these discomforts, for the final study, the researcher changed the instrument by streamlining the qualitative and quantitative instruments into one

97 instrument, making them more user friendly. Next, the instrument was placed into Survey Monkey and teachers were allowed a specified 2-week window to complete the questionnaire for the actual study. The quantitative portion of the pilot study used an online data collection tool to collect the participant responses, which was transferred to an Excel spreadsheet that allowed the researcher to examine each question and response. The results from the data collection process were to eliminate the face-to-face semi-structured interviews for two reasons. The first reason was comfort level experienced by the interviewees. A second reason for elimination was scheduling difficulties encountered with general education teachers and the researcher. In the feedback from the pilot study participants, several participants expressed they would rather complete an online questionnaire much like the quantitative option. Teachers could complete the questionnaire at their leisure and teachers would not feel as though they were being placed on the spot. Based on the results of the pilot study, modifications of the instruments were made (see Appendix I). It was noted that several questions were asked multiple times in different formats, but yielded the same results regardless of the format. Duplicate questions were eliminated and similar questions were merged into one question. The instrument was renamed from survey to questionnaire because it was used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. Data collected during the pilot study were eliminated from the actual study. The pilot study was used to influence how to conduct the actual study and the data analysis procedure versus the data collected. Initially the researcher anticipated needing analysis of the data to make an informed decision regarding the design of the survey instrument; however, at the culmination of the pilot study and

98 further analysis of the question design, the researcher chose not to analyze the data gleaned from the pilot study. The Study: Technology in the Constructivist Classroom Sixty-four teachers returned consent forms to participate in the study; however, only 48 chose to participate. When the researcher received all of the consent forms individual welcome letters were distributed via e-mail. Each participant was welcomed to the study (see Appendix F) with a message sent to their preferred e-mail address as indicated on their consent form. Upon receipt of their individualized welcome letters, teachers were able to complete the questionnaire at their leisure within a 2-week window of time. The purposes for leaving the questionnaire open for 2 weeks was twofold. First, teachers were allowed ample time to complete the instrument. Secondly, the teachers could complete the survey at their leisure, providing enough time to process the questions and accurately answer the questions according to their instructional beliefs and practices. Position and Years Experience Participants were asked to state their grade level and years of experience. Each participant indicated that they were an elementary (K-4), an intermediate (5-6), middle (7-8), or a high school (9-12) teacher. The elementary and intermediate (K-6) campuses had the largest number of participants (N = 68%). The elementary and intermediate campuses included three campuses, two elementary and one intermediate. The high school (9-12) campus had the second largest percentage of participants (N = 23%). The middle school campus had the lowest percentage of participants (N = 9%). The participants years of experience ranged from 1 year to 20 or more years. Fourteen or 29% of the participants stated they had 1 to 5 years experience. Eighteen or

99 38% of the participants stated they had 6 to 10 years experience. Teachers with 6 to 10 years experience were the largest population. Seven or 15% of the participants had 11to 15 years experience. While 6 or 12% reported having 16-20 years experience, only 2 or 4% had 20 or more years of experience, making them the lowest two populations. One participant did not report number of years experience. The primary independent variable was methodologies and techniques teachers use to integrate online technology tools into the classroom. The primary dependent variables were active engagement and technology integration type within the classroom. Moderating variables, defined for the purpose of potential influences on dependent variables, included gender, age, race, years teaching, number of hours of technology integration, types of professional development, and available resources. Each variable was analyzed with relationship to the associated research question and will be discussed throughout Chapter 4. Missing Data Of the 64 individuals who consented to participate in the study, data were missing from 16 participants. Because the study was voluntary, the participants were not obligated to participate nor were there any accountability factors to complete the questionnaire. Several attempts were made to encourage participation from the 16 participants. Two of the 16 missing participants formally requested to opt out of the study. The remaining 14 participants were contacted via electronic messaging; however, there was no response after five attempts.

100 Data Analysis The data underwent an analysis using Microsoft Word and Excel for the qualitative section. The quantitative data was qualified to make the qualitative data richer to establish and explore themes. A hand analysis was preferred because the researcher was analyzing a small sample (48 members) and could easily keep track of files (Creswell, 2004). Once the data were coded, it underwent a preliminary exploratory analysis. After the exploration of the data, the data were examined to identify themes. The data were analyzed to find a variety of themes including ordinary, unexpected, hard-to-classify, and major and minor themes. The themes were layered to identify interconnected levels of themes (Creswell, 2004). Once the data were coded, analyzed for themes, and layered with interconnected themes, the findings were reported. A narrative discussion was used to explain the results and the findings were visually displayed using figures and tables comparing groups on the themes uncovered in the research when appropriate. Triangulation of the Data Triangulation is using three points of data (NWEA, 2009). Creswell (2004, p. 564-65) stated, The purpose of a triangulation mixed method design is to simultaneously collect both quantitative and qualitative data, merge the data, and use the results to best understand a research problem. For the purpose of this study, the qualitative and quantitative data were collected simultaneously. First, the qualitative data were analyzed then the quantitative data were analyzed to solidify the identification of themes obtained from respondents answers and to understand frequency of use. Once the two data sets were analyzed, they were merged to define themes. Three additional data points,

101 elementary and intermediate teachers (K-6), middle school teachers (7-8), and high school teachers (9-12), were analyzed and compared. Triangulation of the data was appropriate for this study because the researcher explored themes directly related to integration of online educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement in analysis segments that included qualitative data analysis, quantitative data analysis, and whole data analysis. Once the three data analyses took place, the researcher examined the data in more detail across the three populations to examine techniques/methods technologically proficient teachers use, how technology tools are used, and barriers teachers encounter with technology integration. This analysis also occurred within the context of the research literature review detailed in Chapter 2. Study Findings Table 1 indicates the number and percentage of teachers who ranked their teaching styles as constructivism. To determine if a teacher was categorized constructivist or behaviorist, respondents were asked to rank the questions in Table 1 with rarely/never, sometimes, or often/always. The teachers who responded sometimes or often/always were categorized constructivist. Of the 48 participants surveyed, 46 (or 96%) indicated constructivist behaviors, thus categorizing them as constructivist teachers.

102 Table 1 Constructivist Practices

Question Students in my class spend time in small groups interpreting data and evaluating conclusions. spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding. are encouraged to ask questions when I present new information. often learn content ideas from one another. Discussions in my class allow students to be actively engaged in asking questions and discussing it as necessary In my classroom, student explorations of the topic frequently precede formal presentation. I teach my content area to prepare my students to solve real-life problems. I check how well students in my class understand new ideas by alternative assessment techniques such as presentations, portfolios, etc. 8.3% (4) 41.7% (20) 50% (24) 2.1% (1) 22.9% (11) 75% (33) 8.3% (4) 54.2% (26) 37.5% (18) 4.2% (2) 2.1% (1) 27.1% (13) 6.3% (3) 68.8% (33) 91.7% (44) 2.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 97.9% (47) 4.2% (2) 25.0% (12) 70.8% (34) 4.2% (2) 41.7% (20) 54.2% (26) Rarely/Never Sometimes Often/Always

A demographic and school analysis of the participants produced a grouping of the five schools. Forty-eight regular education, including content specific areas such as

103 drama and art, participated in the study. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of participants across the five schools in one feeder pattern in north central Texas. Schools A and B are elementary campuses, school C is an intermediate campus, school D is a middle school campus, and school E is a high school campus. Schools B and D had the lowest participation (N = 4). School A had the third highest number of participants (N = 8). School E had the third largest number of participants (N = 11). School C had the largest number of participants (N = 21).

Figure 1. Distribution of participants per school. Research Question 1 Research Question 1 was designed to explore how technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology to engage students in K-12 classrooms. Data results proved the alternative hypothesis; Technologically proficient teachers use a variety of computer applications and Web-based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project-based learning activities, true. Several themes were discovered with how teachers integrate technology tools into their classrooms to support problem- and project-based activities. Qualitative data were

104 gathered, analyzed, and presented, followed by a quantitative analysis. The data were then merged to determine themes to answer the research question. Following is a discussion of the themes that emerged, all individual participant responses are outlined in detail in Appendix K. Question 10 Qualitative Analysis When asked to describe how teachers use technology tools in the classroom to support problem- and project-based activities, three themes were discovered. The themes included research, projects and assignments, and differentiated instruction. The themes were developed through analysis of the qualitative data. Following is a discussion of the qualitative data and connections to the related themes. Each theme is presented in order of significance, and each respondents answer is illustrated in depth in Appendix M. The research theme encompassed several components. Fourteen respondents (10 elementary and intermediate, 1 middle school, and 3 high school teachers) said they use technology tools in the classroom to support problem- and project-based activities through individual student research or online research. One intermediate school respondent stated using technology tools for locating images, one high school teacher stated using technology tools to allow students to complete Webquests that usually included a degree of depth and research, and one high school respondent stated using technology tools to allow students the opportunity to research current events. Respondents indicated other uses encompassing data manipulation, processing data, contacting field experts, and design processes. The projects theme included a variety of activities from publishing tools to student created projects and inventions. One intermediate school respondent reported

105 using technology for group work and collaboration for filming various projects, two intermediate school respondents stated they use computer programs to create and publish material, including presentations and brochures. These teachers also indicated they allow students to use FLIP video cameras to allow students opportunities to design and create their own video productions. One high school respondent allows students to use technology tools to create CDs and PowerPoint presentations. Two middle school respondents also indicated they allow students to use technology tools to create PowerPoint presentations within various content areas and subject matter. Two high school, one middle school, and one intermediate school respondent said they allow students to create a variety of projects and new inventions using technology tools. One high school teacher reported using technology tools to incorporate science probes and a variety of software applications for labs. Additionally, one high school respondent allows students to use technology tools to help them process data. Differentiation is a key component to effective instruction for students in K-12 schools (Tomlinson, 1999). Teachers reported using technology tools to support problemand project-based activities through a variety of formats. Elementary and intermediate school participants identified this theme more. One elementary school respondent stated using technology tools to differentiate instruction, mainly differentiation of products from students. One intermediate school respondent also indicated using various Office tools such as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint to differentiate instruction and allow student choice for differentiation of products. Three elementary school respondents and one high school respondent indicated using technology tools for online games, interactive websites for tutorial purposes, and online Websites to reinforce learning. Teachers said the online

106 Websites were interactive and allowed students to acquire new content knowledge and reinforce existing content knowledge. One high school respondent stated using technology tools for design process, allowing students to complete the seven-step design process for engineering. Additionally, one middle school respondent stated using interactive white boards for content review, and one high school teacher allows students to use graphing calculators. Question 10 Quantitative Analysis Question 10 asked teachers to describe how technology tools are used in the classroom to support problem- and project-based activities. Figure 2 illustrates each of the themes and frequency. Figure 3 indicates the frequency of themes within identified populations including, elementary and intermediate campuses (K-6), middle school campuses (7-8), and high school campuses (9-12).

Figure 2. Themes and frequency of technology use.

Figure 3. Themes and frequency of of technology use at specified grade levels.

107 Further analysis indicates the largest use is with internet research. The next highest use was with projects and assignments, followed by differentiated instruction. Table 2 illustrates the most used applications to keep students actively engaged for the acquisition of content knowledge. Table 2 Most Used Technology Type and Frequency
Technology Type Frequency % Internet Computer Related Activities Interactive Web Tools Internet Images/Video Clips Publishing Software Presentation Software Video Streaming Scavenger Hunts Spreadsheets 95.7% 89.6% 87.5% 85.4% 85.1% 83% 72.9% 68.7% 64.5% 45 out of 47 43 out of 48 42 out of 48 41 out of 48 40 out of 47 39 out of 47 35 out of 48 33 out of 48 29 out of 45 Number of Teachers

Approximately 95% of the teachers indicated they use the internet as a tool to keep students actively engaged. The second highest use was other computer related activities including, but not limited to, online research and games. The third highest use was interactive Web tools including interactive Websites and webquests. The next highest usage was collecting internet images and video clips. The bottom four included presentation software (i.e. Microsoft PowerPoint), video streaming, scavenger Hunts, and

108 spreadsheets. The quantitative and qualitative data sets support each other with the identified themes of how teachers integrate technology tools into the curriculum to engage students with project- and problem-based projects. Question 9 asked participants to describe any other technology tools they use to keep students actively engaged to acquire content knowledge. Four themes surfaced including, online tools, lab tools, district purchased resources and software, and other resources. Following is a discussion of the qualitative analysis followed by quantitative analysis. All participant responses are outlined in Appendix M. Question 9 Qualitative Analysis Online tools included video streaming, movie clips, video clips, online PowerPoints, interactive Websites, and online supplemental materials and resources. One intermediate school respondent stated the use of open-ended questioning techniques that lead students to online research. One intermediate school respondent stated using interactive Websites and video streaming. One elementary teacher identified the use of video streaming and online supplemental material that accompanies the current math adoption allowing students to access course content at any time. Lab tools included microscope mounted cameras, probeware, lab tools, and an active response system. Two middle school respondents stated they use active expressions where the students can text in answers. Additionally, one middle school respondent reported the use of lab tools. District purchased resources and software included infant simulators, computer games, document cameras, regular and graphing calculators and software, projectors, digital cameras, Microsoft Office suite software, laptops, library desktops, conference

109 call software on speakerphone, tape recorders, and mobile devices, and Leapfrog devices. One intermediate school respondent stated using document cameras. One high school teacher stated the main use of technology is with PowerPoint presentations, both teacher and student created. One elementary school respondent allows students to use a variety of Microsoft Office suite software. One intermediate school respondent reported using laptops, library desktops, and conference calls on speakerphones allowing students to make contacts with field experts. One high school respondent uses technology tools and software allowing students to create DVDs. One intermediate school respondent reported using calculators to engage students academically. Additionally, one intermediate school respondent allows students to use PowerPoint software for the production and presentation of new content knowledge. Other resources included a variety of tools. One high school respondent stated students use real life tools and equipment to complete projects to build real projects. One intermediate school respondent reported using cellular devices to keep students actively engaged, and one elementary respondent reported using tape recorders and other listening devices to listen to stories or textbook selections that are read aloud. One elementary respondent identified the use of digital cameras to take pictures of students while they work collaboratively completing various activities. Question 9 Quantitative Analysis The quantitative data collected identified the same themes noted by the qualitative data. Further analysis of the data indicates that the largest population using available technology is in the elementary and intermediate campuses where most of the teachers reported using district purchased materials, followed by online tools. Lab tools were the

110 third most used and were equally reported from middle and high school respondents. Only elementary and intermediate respondents indicated the use of online tools. Research Question 2 Research Question 2 was designed to explore what techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement. The data indicates the alternative hypothesis; Technologically proficient teachers fail to use a variety of Web materials, computer applications, and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week, true. The qualitative analysis is discussed followed by the quantitative analysis. Appendix L outlines each respondents answer when asked to describe how he or she integrates the listed items into the curriculum to keep students actively engaged to acquire content knowledge or skills. Qualitative Analysis For the qualitative data collection of research question two, respondents were asked to describe how they use Web-based technologies, blogging, mind-mapping software, internet Websites, video streaming, podcasts, wikis, movie-making software, classroom Websites, district purchased software, and personally purchased programs to keep students actively engaged. The largest numbers of teachers use Web-based technologies. For the purpose of this study, Web-based technologies encompasses the following items: research, images, video/movie making websites/tools, online videos, viewing of websites through the classroom projector, assessment, independent practice opportunities, daily researching , gathering of information as needed by students, practicing skills, staying informed,

111 communication, building on prior knowledge, tutorials/remediation, graphing data, variety of learning websites, daily Web-based exercises and quizzes, student research, use of Smartboard to complete Web-based activities, practicing concepts, and Webquests. Thirty of the 48 teachers reported using Web-based technologies for purposes including, researching, collecting images and videos, video and movie making websites and tools, staying informed and communication, and watching videos to enhance a lab experience. Teachers indicated using interactive Websites for tutorial purposes, allowing students to practice or reinforce existing knowledge and acquire new knowledge. Respondents also stated using Interactive Websites for graphing data, Webquests, and educational games. Teachers questioned indicated there is very little use of blogging. Three of the 48 teachers questioned reported using blogs to keep students actively engaged. One high school respondent said, I use blogs for tips and techniques and for teaching students how to produce their own blog sites. One intermediate school respondent said, Students use Gaggle. In Gaggle the teacher posts a question and the students respond, making it an interactive discussion. Another intermediate school respondent said, I use blogs to allow students to communicate with one another. Teachers questioned indicated there is very little use of mind-mapping software use occurring. Five of the 48 teachers question reported that they use mind-mapping software. One of the five teachers stated they use mind-mapping; however, nothing is computer generated, making the data unusable. The other four respondents indicated they use mind-mapping software for concept mapping of content specific topics.

112 Twenty-six teachers reported using internet sites. Fifteen of the 26 teachers stated they use internet Websites for researching. Other uses included, locating images, gathering background knowledge to make real world connections, content specific Websites, tutorial sites, Websites to enrich lessons, locating current events for science class, and differentiated instruction. Twenty-four teachers reported using video streaming. Twenty-one teachers indicated using video streaming to supplement concepts being taught, activate background knowledge, introduce new material, or reteach old material. Three teachers indicated they also use components of the Discovery Learning video streaming site to evaluate or assess student knowledge and performance. Six of the 48 teachers indicated they use podcasts. One intermediate school respondent said, I do not currently use podcasts, but would like to for podcasting performances that are filmed. Because the data did not indicate current student usage, it was discarded. One elementary school respondent said, I use podcasting for interviews and recording of products created to show understanding of topics taught. One high school respondent stated, I use podcasts for viewing and learning from the experts. Another high school respondent stated, I use podcasts for audio books. I allow students to listen to authors read their own work. While one intermediate school respondent said, I allow students to produce performances, interviews, etc. with podcasts and a middle school respondent said, I use podcasts for individualized lectures. One intermediate school respondent said, Students use this to record some of their personal writing. Zero teachers indicated they use wikis. Several teachers indicated they do not use wikis because they are blocked by the district filter, making it an unproductive use.

113 Ten of the 48 teachers questioned reported they use movie-making software. All of the respondents indicated they use movie-making software to allow students to edit films or commercials and other video projects, and to create clay animations, classroom yearbooks, and infomercials. Other reported uses of movie-making software include student movies to show sequence of stories or events in history, infomercials, product choices, presentations, commercials that parody ideas or concepts from literature, creation of personal videos to learn about video production, writing, filming, and editing movies to prove understanding of particular content related topics, editing performance, interviews, making morning announcements for the school, and the use of FLIP cameras to make mini films. Seventeen teachers indicated they use their district purchased classroom Website; however, of those 17, only five indicated they use it for student engagement of any type. The five teachers who reportedly use their district created Website for student engagement said they use it for providing necessary vocabulary, learning links, project rubrics, and assignment details. Twelve teachers indicated the primary use of their district created Website was for communicating to parents. Thirteen teachers indicated they use district purchased software to keep students actively engaged. One intermediate school respondent stated, I use BrainPop and Discovery Learning. One high school respondent said, I use CADD design programs and other programs that are specific to my content area, and another high school respondent said, I use district purchased lab materials. A third high school teacher indicated use of the Smartboard, and a fourth high school teacher said, I use Final Cut Pro for Macs, Avid for PCs for video production. Teachers in the elementary and

114 intermediate school reported using Inspiration for thinking maps, various software and programs for academic support of concepts and skills, calculators and science software to build student understanding of technology, and to supplement classroom projects, and differentiated instruction to allow students to work on their targeted weaknesses. Of the 48 teachers questioned, 4 said they use personally purchased programs to engage students. One middle school respondent said, I purchased and use Vlog for classroom newscasts and a variety of dissecting software for science. One teacher indicated the use of free items that are Web-based, while two other teachers indicated the use of Web-based items they have personally purchased. Quantitative Analysis Figure 4 represents the technology type used and the number of teachers who use each technology type. Forty-eight participants were asked the same questions; however, many teachers could not respond to items such as wikis and blogging because they have limited use with these application types.

Figure 4. Number of teachers who use specified tools.

115 As noted in Figure 4, 30 teachers indicate the use of web-based technologies. These 30 teachers indicated high usage of video streaming and internet websites. The internet websites were used mainly for research and gathering of new information. All teachers in the district have a classroom website; however, less than half of the teachers surveyed indicated usage of the websites for academic engagement purposes. While valuable tools provided by the district, very few teachers indicated the use of blogging, mind-mapping software, podcasts, wikis, movie-making software, and personally purchased programs. Research Question 3 Research Question 3 was designed to explore what technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration. The null hypothesis, Technologically proficient teachers perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications), administrative support, and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration, true. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data indicated several themes when participants were asked to describe any barriers encountered in the integration or acquisition of technology within the curriculum. The themes noted were resources (lack of or unreliable), time, student/teacher delays, and training. Appendix M provides each participants response to the statement; Describe any barriers you have in the integration or acquisition of technology within your curriculum. Qualitative Analysis The theme of resources encompasses a variety of factors: funding, lack of resources, reliability of the resources, accessibility of the resources, inconsistency with the resources, lack of space, unorganized resources, lack of available software, and tech

116 support. Several teachers indicated a frustration with the system of the help desk. Two teachers said they placed tickets in the help desk system and the response time was approximately three months to get the equipment fixed. Another barrier indicated was lack of equipment and the necessary internet drops to wire the existing equipment. Many teachers indicated they operate in a single computer classroom. Only K-6 teachers expressed funding as a barrier. Similarly, the middle school teachers (7-8) indicated their only barrier was resources, which encompassed working equipment and number of resources. When asked to identify barriers to technology integration, six teachers identified time as a barrier. One high school respondent said, Time is an issue. There is not enough time to grasp technology skills or adequate time to appropriately plan lessons. One elementary respondent indicated there was not enough preparation time. Two other respondents simply indicated time as an issue. Seven of the 48 teachers interviewed identified student and teacher delays as a barrier to technology integration. One elementary school respondent said, Students have developmental delays. One intermediate school respondent indicated there was difficulty in integrating things other than videos or podcasts because of developmental delays. Additionally, one elementary school respondent indicated there was limited teacher knowledge, making technology integration difficult. When asked to describe the types of technology trainings the school district provides and how often, the respondents indicated a range of responses from limited to various types of training. Some of the trainings described include frequent classes on a variety of programs or software programs, annual updates, Podcasting, Promethean

117 software, Websites, Smartboards, basic computer skills, e-mail, online grade book, KConnect, new teacher training, updates, curriculum training, and new technology purchased. Three teachers identified training as a barrier to technology integration. Two respondents stated they have to hunt for available training and usually do not because they do not have time to search for professional development opportunities. Quantitative Analysis Quantitative data were collected for further exploration regarding each of the following: how many computers are located within each classroom, the types of technology training the school district provides and how often, the percentage of students teachers felt could select the most appropriate technology tool for a given task, the percentage of assignments requiring the use of technology during each grading period, further exploration of the time barrier, the amount of time teachers spend integrating technology into the classroom, and if teachers have a classroom website. Identified barriers included resources, time, teacher delays, and training. Across all populations, resources were the largest barrier. Additionally, K-6 teachers indicated student or teacher delays as a barrier. Time was and training were the two barriers least affecting technology integration. Figure 5 indicates the frequency of training teachers reportedly receive. Of the 48 participants, 37 responded. As noted in Figure 5, teachers feel they receive limited training on available technologies and integration ideas.

118

Figure 5. Amount of technology training received.

When teachers were asked how many computers they have in their classroom, the data indicated teachers had between 1 and 30 computers in a classroom. Classrooms that reported 30 computers also noted the 30 computers were shared among five teachers. Many teachers indicated they had only one working computer in their classroom, which was often indicated as the teacher workstation. Few teachers indicated they had student computers and if they did have student computers they were sparse. Further analysis of the data shows that teachers in K-4 are more likely to have student computers (i.e. 3-4 computers per room) than those teachers located in the intermediate school (5-6). Figure 6 depicts the number of computers in each classroom while Figure 7 shows the number of computers in each classroom at each level (i.e. K-6, 7-8, and 9-12).

119

Figure 6. Number of computers in classrooms.

Figure 7. Number of computers in classrooms at specified grade levels.

Many of the schools are equipped with only one computer, mainly located at the K-6 level. Further analysis among the combined data between K-4 and 5-6 indicates that the 5-6 campuses operate six times as many classrooms on single computers as K-4 counterparts. Evidenced as well is the unequal numbers with three or more computers in a room, where the K-4 teacher data shows they have four times as many as the 5-6 teachers. Further evidenced through data, the middle school level operates many classrooms with zero to two computers in a classroom, with two being the maximum number of computers in a classroom, as reported by teachers. When teachers were asked what percentage of their students were capable of selecting the most appropriate technology tool for a given task (Question 4), the numbers varied from 0% to 100%. The largest number of teachers feel their students could choose the most appropriate technology tool 26-50% (n = 15 teachers) of the time, followed by 76-100% (n = 13 teachers). Only nine teachers felt 51-75% of their students could choose

120 the appropriate technology tool and seven teachers believed 0-25% of the students could choose the appropriate technology tool. Further analysis indicates the largest number of teachers that feel their students could choose the correct technology tool 0-50% of the time (n = 17 teachers). Double the number of teachers at the high school feel their students can choose appropriate technology tools 51-75% (n =4) of the time versus 76100% (n = 8). Question 5 asked participants if they agree or disagree with the following statement: I do not have enough time to integrate technology into my classroom with all of the other things I have to accomplish in the curriculum. Fifteen teachers agreed while 33 disagreed. More teachers, at every level, disagree that they do not have time to integrate technology into their curriculum. On K-6 campuses, almost twice as many teachers disagree than agree. Further analysis indicates this is the trend across all grade levels. Question 6 asked participants what percentage of the assignments or projects each grading period require the use of technology. Respondent answers ranged from 0% to 95%. Figure 8 indicates the number of assignments or projects assigned across all grade levels while Figure 9 indicates the number of assignments specific to each grade level.

121

Figure 8. Percentage of assignments requiring technology tools.

Figure 9. Percentage of assignments requiring technology tools at specified grade levels.

Of the teachers questioned, 45 teachers answered the following question: Each grading period ___% of the assignments or projects requires the use of technology. Of the 45 that answered the question, 34 of the teachers responded that 0-25% of the assignments each nine weeks involve the use of technology tools. The largest number of the respondents was contained within the K-6 level. Six teachers indicated they felt that only 26-50% of their assignments each grading period required the use of technology, followed by 76-100%, and 51-75%. Teacher at the high school level equally answered that 76-100% and 26-50% of the assignments during each grading period require the use of technology. The middle school and high school campuses have equal representation with technology integration less than 3 hours per week. In the middle school, half of the respondents integrate technology at least 3 hours per week. In comparison, the

122 elementary and intermediate school teachers indicate they integrate technology applications or computers less than 3 hours per week. Of the 48 teachers questioned, 15 reported integrating technology into the classroom to engage students more than 3 hours per week. Further analysis indicates overall usage is almost equal between less than 3 hours per week, at least 3 hours per week, and more than 3hours per week. Teachers were asked if they have a teacher Web page or not. The data indicated that 28 teachers do have a Web page, while 20 respondents indicated they did not have a Web page. Earlier data indicated teachers do not use their classroom Web pages for instructional purposes, rather as a communication tool to reach parents and students. High school teachers indicated an equal number of teachers who do and do not use their district provided Web page. At the middle school, only one teacher indicated nonuse of the district provided Web page. The respondents located on K-6 campuses indicated more use than nonuse of the district provided Web pages. Although respondents indicated they have district provided Web pages, previous data indicated only 16 teachers use the pages, and that data represented usage for mainly communication purposes. Research Question 4 Research Question 4 was designed to explore what effect, if any, does Web-based application types have on the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement. Table 3 outlines the Web-based application types examined during the study.

123 Table 3 Web-Based Application Type and Usage Reported

Web-based applications Wikis Scavenger Hunts Podcasts Blogging 95.8% (46) 31.3% (15) 79.2% (38) 85.4% (41) 2.1% (1) 58.3% (28) 14.6% (7) 14.6% (7) 2.1% (1) 10.4% (5) 6.3% (3) 0% (0) Never/Rarely Sometimes Often/Always

Wikis, scavenger hunts, podcasting, and blogging were the four areas of Webbased applications examined during this study. As indicated in Table 3, a large percentage of teachers reported never or rarely using wikis, podcasts, or blogging. Similarly, only 58.3% of the teachers reported that they sometimes use scavenger hunts to promote active engagement. Because the data is conclusive that the majority of the teachers surveyed do not use Web-based applications such as wikis, scavenger hunts, podcasts, and blogging no conclusions could be drawn to determine if these application types had any impact on student engagement.

124 Summary of Findings The purpose of this mixed method study was to explore how K-12 teachers use educational technology tools to engage students. Sixty-four participants consented to share their experiences with the use and integration of educational technology tools to promote active engagement among their students; however, only 48 participated. Four research questions drove the study. Three of the four questions were answered; however, the researcher was unable to answer research question number four due to a lack of teachers who frequently integrate Web-based technology tools such as podcasting, wikis, blogging, and online scavenger hunts. The data were gathered, analyzed, and triangulated across three populations of teachers. The data was triangulated across K-6 grades, which included elementary and intermediate school teachers, grades 7-8, which included middle school teachers, and grades 9-12, which included high school teachers. These populations were selected because they were accessible and the researcher wanted to use the study to explore how teachers across various grade levels integrate educational technology tools. All data sets were examined qualitatively, quantitatively, and as a whole. The data gathered from Research Question 1 indicated teachers use a limited variety of computer applications and Web-based activities in the classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project and problem-based learning activities. A little over 95% of the teachers indicated they use the internet as a tool to keep students actively engaged. Several themes were encompassed in this finding. Many teachers reported using computer applications and Web-based activities for research, projects and assignments, and differentiated instruction. Differentiation instruction is a

125 key component to effective instruction for students in K-12 schools (Tomlinson, 1999). Teachers reported using technology tools to support problem- and project-based activities through a variety of formats, and elementary and intermediate school participants identified this theme more. Additional analysis indicated the largest use is with internet research, followed by projects and assignments, and differentiated instruction. Data also indicated participants use technology tools for online tools, lab tools, district purchased resources and software, and other resources. Further analysis of the data indicated that the largest population using available technology is in the elementary and intermediate campuses where most of the teachers reported using district purchased materials, followed by online tools. Lab tools were the third most used and were equally reported from middle and high school respondents. Research Question 2 was designed to explore what techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient teachers to promote active engagement. The data indicated that technology proficient teachers use a variety of Web materials, computer applications, and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least three times per week. Sixty three percent of the teachers reported using Webbased technologies for purposes including, researching, collecting images and videos, video and movie making websites and tools, staying informed and communication, and watching videos to enhance a lab experience. Teachers indicated using interactive Websites for tutorial purposes, allowing students to practice or reinforce existing knowledge and acquire new knowledge. Respondents also stated using Interactive Websites for graphing data, Webquests, and educational games. Very little use of blogging, podcasting, and mind-mapping were reported. About 20% of the teachers

126 indicated the use of movie-making software to provide active engagement opportunities. Even though the school district provides all teachers with a classroom website, very few teachers indicated use of the site for purposes other than parent communication. Research Question 3 was designed to explore what technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data indicated several themes when participants were asked to describe any barriers encountered in the integration or acquisition of technology within the curriculum. The themes noted were resources (lack of or unreliable), time, student/teacher delays, and training. Additionally, many teachers indicated they operate in a single computer classroom. Quantitative data were collected further exploring each of the following: how many computers are located within each classroom, the types of technology training the school district provides, how often teachers felt students could select the most appropriate technology tool for a given task, the percentage of assignments requiring the use of technology during each grading period. Research Question 4 was designed to explore what effect, if any, Web-based application types have on the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement. Wikis, scavenger hunts, podcasting, and blogging were the four areas of Web-based applications examined during this study. Because the data is conclusive that the majority of the teachers surveyed do not use Web-based applications such as wikis, scavenger hunts, podcasts, and blogging no conclusions could be drawn to determine if these application types had any impact on student engagement.

127 The following chapter reexamines themes that emerged from the participants experiences as outlined in the current study. Chapter 5 includes recommendations for campus leaders including principals, teacher leaders, school district officials, instructional technology personnel, and classroom teachers. The data collected from the research study are a foundation that can help the school district officials and campus leaders prioritize where individual campuses currently are with regard to integration of educational technology within the curriculum to engage students.

128

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this mixed method research study was to explore how K-12 teachers use educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement among students. Two theoretical models guided this research study, constructivism and behaviorism. Constructivist theorists note the emphasis on the students whereby the teacher becomes the facilitator (Correiro et al., 2008). Behaviorists believe that a persons cultural and sub cultural conditioning molds individual personalities (Barnett, 2003). Teachers with constructivist teaching practices engage students at higher and more academically engaging levels than behaviorist teachers. Reportedly, children are bored in schools (Prensky, 2008). Many students feel disconnected from their curricular courses (Prensky), as a result, changing the way teachers teach and children learn takes time. A variety of methods is available to assist teachers with the implementation of technology tools into the classroom. Teachers can use instructional software ranging from mind mapping, word processing, databases, publishing tools, Power Point for presentations, and a variety of educational software. Weblogs, wikis, podcasts, and vodcasts are methods some teachers use to transform the curriculum, allowing learning to occur far beyond the classroom doors (Richardson, 2006). Additionally, teachers are realizing the potential of the World Wide Web. Teachers realize conversations occur, eliminating lectures. In addition, these conversations allow knowledge to be acquired through social processes and allow the presentation of new dialogue as a starting point rather than an ending point (Richardson).

129 Some teachers have also explored social learning where students are able to learn from others, typically through the computer in the form of blogs, virtual learning environments, wikis, or podcasts (Munshi, 2004). Chapter 1 emphasized the importance of teachers transforming instructional methods to more constructivist approaches. There was also an emphasis on the fact that technology research can change the teaching and learning approaches in classrooms and a technology-enriched curriculum may be designed to equip twenty-first century students to become both critical thinkers and leaders (Yazon, 2004). Chapter 2 presented a gap in the literature concerning the lack of technology integration in K-12 classrooms. Current research discusses the use of available technologies; however, the transition from tools to active engagement is nonexistent. The research is vastly popular in the business sector and in higher education; however, limited research is available in K-12 schools (Bonk & Graham, 2006; Watson, 2007). Using technology in the classroom is one method presently used to begin a shift from traditional methods of instruction to more constructivists compatible instruction (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). There are teachers, however, who still prefer behaviorist approaches because they are reliable and structured. In addition, resistance to change is one barrier preventing an empirical shift from behaviorism to constructivism. Similarly, the use of educational technologies is a new method of instruction that needs further study to examine the effectiveness on student learning (Askun, 2006). The literature review discussed two theories and multiple studies to support integration of technology into K-12 classrooms in an effort to engage students. The literature review also discussed extensive research studies that emphasize technology

130 tools already integrated into K-12 classrooms and noted the minimal existence of research addressing effective use of technology tools to promote active academic engagement for all students in K-12 classrooms. The literature review noted the focus embedded in utilizing technology tools as extension activities provided for some students. Chapter 3 discussed the mixed method design using data triangulation for data gathering and analysis. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected simultaneously. First, the qualitative data was analyzed, followed by the quantitative data. Triangulation occurred when both data sets were examined qualitatively, quantitatively, and holistically searching for themes in the data. The data were then compared across multiple grade level populations. Chapter 4 presented the results and themes discovered in relation to each research question presented. The research findings indicated that teachers frequently use a small variety of technology tools including, PowerPoint presentations, internet, internet images and video clips related to their curriculum, and interactive Web tools, such as gaming Websites. Additional data collected validated that teachers use a limited variety of technology tools in their curriculum to engage students in the acquisition of content knowledge. Chapter 5 contains the conclusions and recommendations based on the findings and the data analysis of the study. Additionally, there is a discussion of the interpretation of the data, limitations, and significance of the study to leadership. This chapter also addresses implications to leadership and conclusions of how teachers integrate technology into their classrooms to engage students to acquire content knowledge.

131 Interpretations of the Data Results Teachers who reported using a variety of technology tools in their classroom also reported technology integration into their classrooms at least 3 hours per week. The same teachers also indicated they use a classroom Web page. Each teacher across the school district is supplied with a district designed Web page. Many teachers reported using the classroom Web page for communication or housing of necessary materials. Doing this allows students the ability to access curriculum related materials and enrichment opportunities; however, using the Web page for communication purposes only limits opportunities to engage students academically. Therefore, district wide implementation of teacher Web page use may be necessary to provide further student engagement opportunities. Teachers from across grade levels reported lack of working resources as a barrier to overcome for effective and seamless integration of technology into the curriculum. Funding is a significant barrier to adequate technology integration. The current state funding appropriates $3 per student and the school district receives an additional $27 from the state, and district personnel have had to rely on the majority of the funding for the operation of the entire technology department. Presently, with bond money, the school district is examining how to divide the state technology funding for upcoming years. The lack of resources within the school district is significantly related to the lack of funding. The school district also encounters difficulties with replacement of resources. Approximately 6 years ago, the technology budget was adequate and there was a 5-year replacement cycle for classroom computers and a 3-year replacement cycle for secondary computer labs (Joe Griffin, personal communication, February 25, 2009).

132 The teachers surveyed indicated there is some district support with training opportunities; however, some felt the trainings needed to be advertised more frequently. Increasing support levels from administration at both the campus level and central office level does not necessarily result in a positive implementation of change. Successful technology integration must be supported, monitored, and equitable across all grade levels. Teachers from all grade levels indicated a need for additional resources or simply reliable resources. Teachers must believe technology integration is important, a priority, and a necessity for effective integration of existing technology tools. The most important finding in the study is the discovery that teachers do integrate technology tools into their classrooms; however, the range of integration methods is minimal. The primary areas of integration included, internet usage, internet research, and interactive Websites used for a variety of purposes. Therefore, students have limited opportunities to be actively engaged at higher levels. The benefits of allowing students to use technology tools for higher levels of academic engagement may eventually lead to higher test scores and better preparation for using twenty-first century learning skills. In response to the findings in technology research, the U.S. Department of Education in combination with the Milken Exchange on Educational Technology and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) designed the National Education Technology Standards for Students (NETS) (McNamara, 2004). The NETS illustrates the importance of students being prepared to complete a variety of tasks using technology. Such tasks include communicating through a variety of media and formats; compiling, organizing, analyzing, and synthesizing information; drawing conclusion and making generalizations; basic and complex problem solving; understanding and knowing

133 content as well as being able to locate additional information when needed; becoming self-directed learners; collaborating with team members; and interacting with others in social, ethical, and appropriate ways (McNamara). From this movement, educators began to realize teachers had to change how they teach to accommodate the methods and situations in which students best learn. While many factors affect and shape teacher behaviors, to understand the impact of technology on schools, it is vital to analyze processes of technology integration versus outcomes of the integration (McNamara). Outcomes should be minimized to maximize engagement and integration opportunities. Minimizing outcomes allows teachers to focus on instructional processes ensuring students have ample opportunities to take learning to higher levels rather than placing emphasis on products or outcomes from the use of the technology tools. Conclusions and Interpretations According to Cuban (1993), there are two reasons to acquire technology. The first reason is the fear that without the necessary tools in schools, students will not be competitive in the job market. Secondly is that technology tools will be used to help teachers reshape traditional methods and replace them with constructive practices (Cuban). More constructivist practices include student-centered instruction, collaborative work teams, information exchange opportunities, and inquiry-based learning, all components of the twenty-first century learner skills students need to be productive in real world situations. Research shows that technology research pedagogy can change the teaching practices and learning approaches in classrooms, and a technology-enriched curriculum can be designed to help equip twenty-first century students to become both

134 critical thinkers and leaders (Yazon, 2004). Therefore, it is important to provide methods of instruction that prove meaningful to students (Sturgess, 2006). Research indicates that high levels of active engagement during lessons are associated with higher levels of achievement and student motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). One argument is that students receive assignments or tasks that have a level of personal meaning and relevance (Means et al., 2003). When teachers assign more complex tasks students become more active in defining their own learning goals and regulating learning as a process (Means et al.). When students are working on tasks that are more complex their learning becomes interactive and collaborative (Means et al.). Students are more motivated when they collaborate, since they like to work together resulting in active academic engagement. Other researchers support collaboration with the use of online telecommunication across classrooms, encouraging collaboration among students from different geographic regions to improve academic skills (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000). Teachers who indicated constructivist practices noted that they allow students to work together in cooperative groups to explore tasks that are more complex. Teachers also indicated they allow students to have discussions that are directly related to course content. The number of years of teaching was selected as a variable because it seemed probable that teachers who had more experience would be less likely to integrate technology into the curriculum (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2000). However, the data is inconclusive that the number of teaching years affects the number of hours per week teachers elected to integrate technology because 58% of the participants had 15 or fewer years experience and indicated at least 3 hours of technology

135 integration each week. A possibility of this occurrence is lack of resources. Because the teachers do not have adequate resources they often feel frustrated when trying to integrate technology tools into the classroom to engage students. Furthermore, operating a single computer classroom is difficult and less effective when asking students to perform twenty-first century skills, including critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration. Moderating variables including number of hours of technology integration, types/amounts of professional development, and available resources did prove significant in terms of how teachers integrate technology into their curriculum to engage students. Availability of resources was selected as a variable because it seemed apparent that teachers who experience frustrations from the lack of resources might be further stressed with the expectation that technology is to be integrated to allow students multiple opportunities and differentiated methods to acquire new content knowledge or reinforce existing content knowledge. Based on respondent responses and the lack of resources located campus wide, it can be understood that teachers are frustrated and less willing to integrate technology due to the complexities involved with integration processes. Implications for Leadership As detailed in Chapter 1, it is important to teach teachers methods of how to use technology as a tool to support the teaching and learning process (Hughes, 2008; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). Additionally, the integration of technology into K-12 classrooms is fundamental to the success of many student populations (Watson, 2007). Throughout the study, it was emphasized that technology integration in K-12 classrooms is one way to begin a much-needed educational reform and change the way students are taught and teachers think.

136 Research indicates that teachers who understand the need to integrate technology typically have higher achieving students (Watson). Teachers use technology in ways that are consistent with their current teaching practices (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). Furthermore, teachers are less likely to implement technology if it is not already a current practice within their instructional design (Zhao et al., 2002). Little support for integration of technology exists, which encourages teachers to transform instructional practices and serves as a channel for change (Cuban et al., 2001). Consequently, teacher innovation is unlikely, and for teachers to change instructional uses of technology and use computers there must be some pedagogical connections to how the use of technology will support the curriculum, otherwise bad pedagogy may become automated (Debevec, Shih & Kashyap, 2006; Pedersen, 2006). The primary focus of the study was to explore how teachers use technology tools for active engagement among students. Research that examines various methods of how technology tools are integrated into K-12 classrooms must be reviewed and assessed frequently. Further, longitudinal studies of how teachers integrate technology must be examined over time to determine trends and analyze how technology integration is increasing levels of student engagement. Because this study only examined one feeder pattern in one school district and there was minimal participation from schools outside the intermediate campus, the results are preliminary and could vary drastically dependent on the population. These findings may vary by place. Teachers in more technologically affluent school districts may indicate a broader spectrum of technology integration and usage. It is also a possibility that more affluent schools and school districts may be less fluent in technology proficiencies, due in part, to lack of federal funding assistance. It is

137 also possible that continuous training and professional development followed by adequate and properly working resources will encourage more use and integration of technology tools in K-12 classrooms to allow opportunities for active engagement and acquisition of new content knowledge. The expectation of technology proficiencies varies from district to district and state to state because there are limited mandates for levels of teacher technology proficiency. New Texas teachers are required to show evidence of technology proficiency; however, previously certified teachers are not required to meet these qualifications. Limitations of this research study included questioning a larger population of intermediate schoolteachers than any other population, and combining the elementary and intermediate campuses as one population for data triangulation purposes. Having a small population from the middle school and high school campuses does not fully represent those populations. Another limitation was that the questionnaire was somewhat lengthy with the qualitative data collection questions. This study was limited to those participants who voluntarily agreed to participate. The study was also limited to the number of participants from each grade level because there was not an equitable distribution of participants. The researcher is an intermediate school intervention specialist and teachers at this level may have felt obligated to participate. The response rate was 75%; however, the distribution of the population was primarily located at the fifth and sixth grade levels. This lack of participation from other grade levels, namely K-4 and 7-12 may leave the generalizability of the study questionable. Another limitation to the study was the assumption the teachers who identified themselves as technology proficient effectively and frequently integrated technology into their curriculum. An additional limitation to the

138 study was possible subject confusion over precise meaning of terms such as proficiency, academic engagement, constructivism, and behaviorism when used in relation to educational technology. The study did not analyze out-of-class teaching or learning using technology subsequently serving as an additional limitation. Finally, with such a small sample size (N = 48), the generalizability of the data may be questionable. The results of this study may empower educational leaders and classroom teachers, or teacher leaders, to consider new methods of instruction allowing for more differentiated instruction, which may create additional opportunities for active engagement for students at all academic levels. With the additional information gathered from this study, educational leaders may develop programs to assist their faculty who are experiencing difficulty with implementing educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement for students at all academic levels. Subsequently, the results of this study may assist in the implementation of new programs to encourage the integration of online educational tools in K-12 classrooms to promote active academic engagement at a variety of levels. Additionally, the results from this study may influence the future of educational technology integration and implementation from campus to campus across various school districts. Recommendations Teachers willingness to share their experiences with technology integration into the K-12 curriculum for student engagement left important unanswered questions. The state of Texas has implemented technology competencies that students are expected to learn at each grade level ranging from kindergarten through 12th grade. The fact that technology TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) have been placed into

139 technology education curriculums shows how significant technology education is becoming statewide. Further research in the field of technology integration will serve to answer several questions. What effect, if any, do Web-based applications affect the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? How much does technology integration into the curriculum impact teachers willingness to embrace existing tools? How do teachers work to overcome barriers associated with technology integration? How can teachers work more collaboratively to find methods to integrate technology tools into the existing curriculum providing active engagement opportunities for students at all academic levels? A focus group of teachers could share insight regarding how teachers work to overcome barriers associated with technology integration. Gaining insight into schools in either rural or inner city areas may provide more diverse attitudes with respect to how teachers work to overcome barriers. Additionally, focus groups or individual interviews may indicate if and why teachers feel relieved that technology education is now being recognized. Surveys at larger school districts that are more technologically affluent may shed more insight to what effect, if any, Web-based applications affect the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement. In an effort to see diversity in responses, teachers from a technology rich school district and a somewhat less rich school district could be surveyed to explore methods of how teachers collaboratively work to promote integration of technology tools into the curriculum to provide academic engagement opportunities for students at all academic levels.

140 Recommendations for Future Research In an attempt to observe trends over time, research on how teachers integrate technology tools for active engagement among students must be repeated frequently because of the constant change among technology, teacher preparation, and teacher attrition. When interpreted alongside data from like studies conducted over time, the data collected in this study may become more meaningful. Careful examination of the data over the course of several years may allow implications to become clearer. When repeating the research over time, a comparative analysis or longitudinal study may be completed to gain a deeper understanding of how teachers integrate technology into their curriculum for active engagement among students in K-12 classrooms. Because there is limited research examining how K-12 teachers integrate technology into their curriculum to provide active engagement opportunities, many future study opportunities exist. Further examination of barriers in more technologically rich school districts is worthy of future study. Repeating the study with a different population, either qualitatively, quantitatively, or mixed method design is another area worthy of further examination. Another possibility for future study is to repeat the study in a rural setting. The study could also be repeated with a larger sample size. Another option is an exploration of unanswered research question: What effect, if any, Web-based applications affect the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? Repeating the study with face-to-face interviews may make the data more rich. In addition, repeating the study in a more technologically rich school district may provide new insight. Examination of how teachers use technology during project- and problembased learning is worthy of future study, and additional research is needed to examine

141 teachers skill levels to implement a variety of technology tools outside of the internet and the basic Office products. An alternative to the study is to conduct an action research study examining the teachers skill levels from student perceptions before teachers participate in a variety of instructional technology professional developments, and then survey the same students to see if their teachers are implementing any tools presented to them during their professional development sessions. Finally, exploration of how teachers use specific technology types such as mobile learning devices is a possibility for future study.

142

Summary The two theoretical frameworks that supported this research study were constructivism and behaviorism. In constructivism, teachers become facilitators of learning by assisting students in the construction of meaning and processing of new information. Teachers are the facilitators who are present to assist students in their construction and building schema to construct personal solutions to existing problems (Clark, 1999). Teachers use technology tools for active engagement among students at higher cognition levels, thus leaving teachers as facilitators and coaches rather than knowledge dispensers (Means, et al., 2003). Behaviorists believe that knowledge exists on its own, and learning ensues during the transmission and acquisition of knowledge (Summary of Behaviorism, 2008). Learning occurs through drill and practice and the learner is able to give predicted outcomes (Summary of Behaviorism). Teacher-directed and structured classrooms are consistent with this theory. Instruction is sequential, beginning with lower level and working to higher levels, regardless of student ability levels and preexisting knowledge. There is less emphasis on group work and more emphasis on individualized work. The instruction follows a more traditional approach and pedagogical practices. Although participants identity were secured (see Appendix N), the sample size of this study included 48 technologically proficient teachers in one school district located in north central Texas. The sampling included teachers from the elementary school (K-4), intermediate school (5-6), middle school (7-8), and the high school (9-12). Based on the study results, K-12 teachers need effective professional development in technology integration within their curriculum to understand how to engage students. In addition,

143 teachers reported the need for reliable and adequate resources for proper, effective, and seamless integration of technology tools into their curriculum to provide their students active engagement opportunities. While an overwhelming 96% of the teachers identified themselves as constructivist, the data proves the alternative hypothesis that teachers integrate a variety of technology tools into their curriculum for active engagement among students. While there is some variety of integration, it is limited to internet research, projects, and differentiated instruction methods. Forty-six percent of the teachers questioned indicated they use the internet for research, 32% use technology tools for projects, and 22% for differentiated instruction. The 48 participants who participated in the study shared insight to how they effectively use technology to engage students in the K-12 classroom, the techniques technologically proficient teachers use to promote active engagement, and the barriers perceived with technology integration. The researcher was unable to answer the fourth research question: What effect, if any, do Web-based applications have on the level of technology integration into the classroom to promote active engagement? This was because limited data was available and few teachers reported little to no use with respect to the Web-based applications. Seamless technology integration into the curriculum takes time. Twenty-first century students prefer questions rather than answers, sharing their opinions, group projects, working with real-world issues, and teachers who speak with them as equals rather than as inferiors (Prensky, 2008, p. 33). Accordingly, this study illustrates that Texas teachers need additional professional development, resources, and curricular opportunities to allow students to use technology tools for active engagement.

144

REFERENCES American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2006). Retrieved October 7, 2007, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/schema Anderson, K. M. (2007, Spring). Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51, 49-54. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. Apsler, R., Formica, S., Fraster, B., & McMahan, R. (2006, November). Promoting positive adolescent development for at-risk students with student assistance. Journal of Primary Prevention, 6, 533. Retrieved March 28, 2007, from Proquest database. Askun, C. S. (2007). Relationships between students level of effort and course perceptions in a blended learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. (AAT No. 323635). Baker, T. R. (2005, Feb.). Internet-based GIS mapping in support of K-12 education. Professional Geographer, 57, 7. Retrieved July 18, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. Barber, C. (2008). America on the couch. The Wilson Quarterly, 32, 97. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from EBSCOhost database. Barnett, H. (2003). Investing in technology: The payoff in student learning. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from ERIC Digest (ERIC Identifier: ED479843)

145 Bausell, S. B. (2006). Pump up the pod: Popular culture and podcasting in a critical secondary language arts course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa. (AAT No. 1435698). Behaviorist Theory. (n.d.). Retrieved, August 5, 2008, from http://www.theshrink.info/Theory_Behaviorist.htm Behler, A. F. (2007). The future of podcasting in postsecondary education: A Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University. (AAT No. 3255225). Bernard, R. M, Abramia, P. C., Lou, Y., & Borokhovski, E. (2004). A methodological morass? How we can improve quantitative research in distance education. Distance Education 25, 175-198. Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons learned. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Bigatel, P. M. (2004). Exploring the beliefs and attitudes of exemplary technology-using teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University. (AAT No. 3140991). Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1999) In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brown, K. F. (2002). A case study describing online discussion in a tenth-grade

146 biotechnology class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia. (AAT No. 3044914). Brotz, W. J. (2006). Components associated with perceived student satisfaction in a technology enhanced secondary astronomy course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. (AAT No. 3232788). Businesses Services Industry. (2005). $2 billion federal program funding internet for public schools makes no impact on student performance. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Nov_21/ai_n15862780 Butzin, S. M. (2000). Project CHILD: A decade of success for young children. Technology Horizons in Education Journal, 27, 11. Carpenter, C. A., II. (2006). The relationship of public elementary school size, student achievement, and per pupil expenditures in South Carolina. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from Proquest database. Cerafoss, R. S. (2007). Correlation of student performance based on multiple assessment tools in middle school mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Phoenix. (AAT No. 3257513). Clark, D. (1999). Constructivism. Retrieved August 5, 2007, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/constructivism.html Cobb County School District (2007) School Feeder Pattern Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://www.cobbk12.org/generalinfo/feederpatterns.htm Cole, E. S. (2004, Fall). An experience in Froebel's garden. Childhood Education, 67, 4. Retrieved July 18, 2007, from Proquest database.

147 Computer Questions (2007). History, the history of computers, and the history of computers in education. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from http://www.csulb.edu/~murdock/histofcs.html Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business Research Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cornell, K. (2007). Technology influence on education. Retrieved, September 8, 2008, from http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1282195 Correiro, E.E., Griffin, L.R., & Hart, P.E. (2008). A constructivist approach to inquirybased learning: A TUNEL assay for the detection of apoptosis in cheek cells. The American Biology Teacher, 70, 457. Creswell, J. W. (2004). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classrooms: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record. 95(2), 185-2 10. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834. Dakers, J. (2005). The hegemonic behaviorist cycle. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 111. Debevec, K., Shih, M., & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning strategies and performance in a technology integrated classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 293-307. DePaula, R. A. (2004). The construction of usefulness: How users and context create

148 meaning with a social networking system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder. Dervin, F. (2006, April). Podcasting demystified: Fred Dervin explains how to use podcasts to enliven the language classroom. Retrieved August 2, 2007, from http://languagemagazine.com/internetedition/langmag_pages/podcasting_LM_apr 06.pdf Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Dzuiban, C. D., Moskal, P., Juge, F., Truman-Davis, B., Sorg, S. & Hartman, J. (2000). Developing a web-based instructional program in a metropolitan university. Unpublished manuscript, University of Central Florida Feng, J. (2006). Grassroots blogging practice in America and China. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Alberta, Canada. Foster, R. D. (2007). Individual resistance, organizational justice, and employee commitment to planned organizational change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Fox, C. (2007, June). From technophobes to tech believers. THE Journal, 34, 36-37. Retrieved September 17, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. Funderstanding. (2001). Vygotsky and social cognition. Retrieved August 5, 2007, from http://www.funderstanding.com/vygotsky.cfm Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. George, P. (2000). Breaking ranks. Principal Leadership, 1(4), 56-61.

149 Gonsalves, A. (2005). Study: Internet has no impact on student performance. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=174400731 Green, J. D. (2006). The impact of teacher self efficacy and attitudes toward classroom computer(s) on the issue of classroom technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, United States: Detroit, MI. Greevy, M. (2005). Technology integration. Retrieved, August 10, 2008, from http://home.hvc.rr.com/greevyportfolio/Technology%20Integration%20greevy.ht m Hardin, S. L. (2006). How teacher attitudes and administrator behaviors affect levels of technology integration in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesberg, MS. Herndon, G. F. (2006). The influence of essential technology on teachers attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY. Hirschheim, R. (2005, July). The internet-based education bandwagon: Look before you leap. Communications of the ACM, 48, 96-101. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from Proquest database. Huang, G. H. (2006, Fall). Informal forum: Fostering active learning in a teacher preparation program. Education, 127, 131-139. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from Proquest database. Hughes, K. E. (2008). A mixed methods case study of the influence of teacher professional development for technology integration on subsequent student

150 achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. (AAT No. 3304229). Hunt, O. (2007). A mixed method design. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/a-mixed-method-design-177933.html JIME: Educational Technology (2003, Feb. 2). History of educational technology. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/6/issroffscanlon-02-6-03.html Johnson, B. R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-27. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from Proquest database. Jones, S. J. (2007). Blogging and ESL writing: A case study of how students responded to the use of Weblogs as a pedagogical tool for the writing process approach in a community college ESL writing class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. (AAT No. 3254430). Justus, M. D. (2005). Where online learning, community and culture intersect: Toward an understanding of knowledge-building communities in virtual environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax County, VA. Kerr, S. (2005). Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally based model for technology and educational change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1005-1016.

151 Klamik, L.T. (2005). Creating a product to increase internal motivation to use technology in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS. (AAT No. 3240864). Klem, A., & Connell, J. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, March 11-14th, 2004, Baltimore, MD. Kretchmar, J. (2008). Seymour Papert and constructivism. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from EBSCOhost database. Learning Theories. (2006). Learning theories and theorists: Comparison of constructivist and behaviorist learning theory models. Retrieved, August 18, 2008, from http://tiger.towson.edu/~mheldt1/portfolio/theory.htm Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007, January). PEW internet project data memo. Retrieved September 27, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SNS_Data_Memo_Jan_2007.pdf Litke, C. D. (1998). Virtual schooling at middle grades: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary, Canada. Littrell, A. B. (2005). My space: Using blogs as literature journals with adolescents, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville. (AAT No. 3205481). McKenzie, W. (2005). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology. NJ: Upper Saddle River. MacLachlan, D. T. (2004). Exploring self-direction in an online learning community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary, Canada.

152 Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007, Summer). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 417-430. Retrieved August 5, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. Means, B.; Blando, J.; Olson, K.; Middleton, T.; Morocco, C. C.; Remz, A. R.; et al. (1993). Using technology to support education reform. Retrieved, August 6, 2008, from odysseia.cti.gr/odysseas/documents/dod_usa1.doc Metz, C. (2006, July). MySpace Nation. PC Magazine, 25(12), 76-87. Retrieved August 5, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. Munshi, K. (2004, July). Social learning in a heterogeneous population: Technology diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution. Journal of Development Economics, 73, 185-213 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000). Teachers tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers use of technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/2000102/ Nelson, L. P. (1981). Background: The European influence. In R. Barella & T. Wright (Eds.), An interpretive history of industrial arts (pp. 19-49). Bloomington, IL: McKnight. Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 15-27. NWEA. (2009). Data triangulation. Retrieved, February 17, 2009, from http://www.nwea.org/support/details.aspx?content=528

153 Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation. New York: Jossey-Bass. Peake, J.B., Briers, G., & Murphy, T. (2005). Relationships between student achievement and levels of technology integration by Texas agriscience teachers. Journal of Southern Agriculture Research 55, 1. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from Proquest Database. Pedersen, J. T. (2006). K-12 Educators beliefs and attitudes toward technology integration in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, KY. Ponschock, R. L. (2007). Computer technology, digital transactions, and legal discovery: A phenomenological study of possible paradoxes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. Prensky, M. (2008, Summer). Young minds, fast times: The twenty-first-century digital learner. Edutopia, 32 Rentie, V. (2008). A case study of the digital divide: A study of teacher awareness and efforts to bridge the gap in underserved communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA. (AAT No. 3296841). Rice, K. L. (2006). Priorities in K-12 distance education: A Delphi study examining multiple perspectives on policy practice and research, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boise State University, Boise, ID. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

154 Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved August 5, 2007 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/795 Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-Determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Saettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology (1st ed.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Shaunessy, S.E. (2005). Attitudes of teachers of the intellectually gifted in Mississippi toward information technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg. Sherman, T., & Kurshan, B. (2005). Constructing learning: Using technology to support teaching for understanding. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32(5), 10-13, 39. Simon, M. K. (2006). Dissertation and scholarly research: A practical guide to start and complete your dissertation, thesis, or formal research project. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. Centra Software. Retrieved August 14, 2007, from http://www.centra.com/download/whitepapers/blendedlearning.pdf Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. (2000). 2000 research report on the effectiveness of technology in schools (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Software and Information

155 Industry Association. Skinner, B. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86-97. Smith, D. O. (2006). Analysis of factors contributing to teachers acquisition and use of technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, TX. Steinhoff, G. (2007). Examining and addressing resistance to change in an elementary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark. Sturgess, M. C. (2006). Reflections on the practice of blended learning in first year postsecondary education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada. Summary of Behaviorism. (2008). Retrieved, August 5, 2008, from https://www.msu.edu/~kalinkat/professionalpages/TechMatrixMaterials/Behavior ismSummary.htm Tang, A.; Owen, C.; Biocca, F.; & Mou, W. (2004). Performance evaluation of augmented reality for directed assembly. In A. Nee & S. Ong (Eds.), Virtual and augmented reality applications in manufacturing. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Teddlie, C. (2005). Methodological issues related to causal studies of leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 33(2), 211-227. Tello, S., & Lewis, D. (2008). Using wikis, podcasts, and video files to enhance the learning experience. Proceedings for the Northeast Region Decision Sciences Institute (NEDSI), 204-209. Retrieved, August 5, 2008, from EBSCOhost database. Thompson, A. D., Simonson, M. R., & Hargrave, C. P. (2008). Educational

156 technology: A review of the research (2nd ed.). Ames, IA: College of Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tomlinson, C.A. (2004). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Toporski, N., & Foley, T. (2004, January). Design principles for online instruction: A new kind of classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5, 1. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde13/articles/toporski.html Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2007, March). Morphological analysis in school-age children: Dynamic assessment of a word learning strategy. British Journal of Education, 77, 143-165. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. United States Department of Education. (2007, September). No child left behind: A toolkit for teachers. Retrieved September 27, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/toolkit_pg4.html Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of high psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Watson, S. J. (2007). A national primer on K-12 online learning. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://ww.nacol.org/docs/national_report.pdf White, H. B. (2004). Exemplary teacher program: A case study of professional development model for technology integration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS .

157 Wingard, R. G. (2004). Classroom teaching changes in Web-enhanced courses: A multiinstitutional study. Educause Quarterly, 27(1). Retrieved August 2, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/pub/eq/eqm04/eqm0414.asp Yazon, J. M. O. (2004). Is it design or is it inquiry? Exploring technology research in a Filipino school setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of British Columbia, Canada. Zargari, A., & MacDonald, K. (1994, May/June). A history and philosophy of technology education. Technology Teacher, 53, 5. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. Zhao, Y, Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104 (3), 482-515.

158 APPENDIX A: QUALITATIVE QUESTIONNAIREPRIOR TO PILOT STUDY

159 Participant Name (optional) ____________________________________ Participant School ____________________________________________ Participant Grade level taught (include all) ________________________ Participant Subject Taught _____________________________________ Are you (choose all that apply): _____ General Education _____ Gifted/Talented _________ Grade Level _________ Grade Level

1. Describe how you integrate computer activities into the curriculum. 2. Describe how technology tools are used in your classroom to support problem- and project-based activities. 3. Describe how you integrate Web-based technology into your curriculum. 4. Describe how you use blogging in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. 5. Describe how you use mind mapping software in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. 6. Describe how you use internet websites in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. 7. Describe how you use video streaming in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. 8. Describe how you use interactive Web tools to keep your students actively engaged. 9. Describe how you use podcasts in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. 10. Describe how you use wikis in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. 11. Describe how you use movie making software in your classroom to keep students actively engaged. 12. Describe how you use your classroom website to keep students actively engaged. 13. Each grading period ____ % of the assignments/projects requires the use of technology. 14. Describe the types of technology resources you have access to. 15. Describe the process your school utilizes to reserve available technologies for teacher/student use.

160 16. Describe the types of district purchased software programs you have available for use with your students. 17. Describe the types of personally purchased software programs you have available for use with your students.

Behaviorists/ Constructivists: 19. Describe how you allow your students to use each other to learn content ideas from one another. 20. Describe how students in your class spend time in small groups interpreting data and evaluating conclusions. 21. Describe how students in your class spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding. 22. Describe how you encourage students to ask questions when you present new information. 23. Describe how students in your class explore questions generated from their own experiences. 24. Describe how discussions in your class allow students to be actively engaged in asking questions and discussing it as necessary. 25. Describe how students in your classroom explore the topic prior to formal presentation. 26. Describe how you teach your content area to prepare your students to solve real-life problems. 27. Describe how you use the learning cycle methodology for teaching in your content area. 28. Describe how students in your class use information from different sources to solve problems within your content area. 29. Describe how you check how well students in your class understand new ideas using alternative assessment techniques.

161 30. Describe how you encourage students to bring up new topics for discussion related to your content area. 31. Describe how students in your class use the think aloud approach when solving problems. 32. Describe how students in your class select and evaluate research articles on topics in which they are interested. 33. Describe how students in your class explore questions generated from their own experiences. 34. Describe how students in your class work in cooperative learning groups. 35. Describe how students in your class discuss observations and data and receive feedback on their interpretations. 36. Describe how you use questions to determine if students are logical in their thinking. 37. Describe how you use different approaches to assess student mastery of the ideas you have taught in class. 38. Describe how the ideas in your class are made personally meaningful. 39. Describe why you allow/do not allow students to retake exams after additional instruction when they fail to demonstrate mastery of the content. 40. Describe the types of technology training your school district provides to you and how often.

162

APPENDIX B: QUANTITATIVE SURVEYPRIOR TO PILOT STUDY

163 Participant Name (optional) ____________________________________ Participant School ____________________________________________ Participant Grade level taught (include all) ________________________ Participant Subject Taught _____________________________________ Are you (choose all that apply): _____ General Education _____ Gifted/Talented _________ Grade Level _________ Grade Level

Scale:
1never or very rarely 2rarely 3sometimes 4often 5very often or always

Question
1 Never or very rarely 2 Rarely 3 Sometimes 4 Often 5 Very often or always

Behaviorist

1. Curricular activities in my classroom rely mainly on textbooks as offered to developing my own course materials. 2. I use lectures as a primary means to teach. 3. I rely primarily on quizzes and paper and pencil tests/quizzes to grade in my class. 4. Students in my class primarily work independently. 5. I seek correct answers to validate student learning. 6. Students in my class get the grade they earn on the first try.
Constructivist

1. Students in my class spend time in small groups interpreting data and evaluating conclusions. 2. Students in my class spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding. 3. Students in my class are encouraged to ask questions when I present new information. 4. Students in class often learn content ideas from one another.

164 5. Discussions in my class allow students to be actively engaged in asking questions and discussing it as necessary. 6. In my classroom, student explorations of the topic frequently precede formal presentation. 7. I teach my content area to prepare my students to solve real-life problems. 8. I check how well students in my class understand new ideas by alternative assessment techniques such as portfolios, presentations, etc. 9. I encourage students to bring up new topics for discussion related to my content area. 10. Students in my class use the think aloud approach when solving problems. 11. Students in my class select and evaluate research articles on topics in which they are interested. 12. Students in my class work in cooperative learning groups. 13. I use questions to determine if students are logical in their thinking. 14. I use different approaches to assess student mastery of the ideas taught in the class. 15. Ideas taught in my class are made personally meaningful by asking students to give examples of the concepts discussed in class. 16. Students in my class retake exams after additional instruction when they fail to demonstrate mastery of the content. 17. I use blogging in my classroom to keep students actively engaged. 18. I use internet websites in my classroom to keep students actively engaged. 19. I use video streaming in my classroom to keep students actively engaged. 20. I use interactive Web tools to keep my students actively engaged. 21. I use podcasts in my classroom to keep students actively engaged. 22. I use wikis in my classroom to keep students actively engaged. 23. I use movie making software in my classroom to keep students actively engaged. 24. I provide interactive learning opportunities for students through my classroom website. 25. I place assignments on my website for my students to review.

165 26. How often do you use mind-mapping/outlining software with your students? 27. How often do you connect with other classrooms using video conferencing or web cams? 28. How often do you use the internet to show images or video clips that are related to your curriculum? 29. How often do you find or develop scavenger hunts to introduce or review a unit of study? 30. How often do your students participate in scavenger hunts to introduce or review a unit of study? 31. How often do you have your students create high quality Power Point presentations as unit projects?
32. Please check the frequency in which you use each of the following software with your students for active engagement: (QUAN) a. Publishing (e.g. Microsoft Word, Microsoft Publisher) Spreadsheet (e.g. Microsoft Excel) Database (e.g. Microsoft Access) Presentation (e.g. Microsoft PowerPoint) Internet District Purchased Software (e.g. Inspiration, Kidspiration, etc.) g. Digital Video Production (e.g. iMovie) h. Publishing (e.g. Microsoft Word, Microsoft Publisher) i. Blogs j. Wikis k. Podcasts l. Internet Websites (typically for research purposes) m. Video Streaming n. PALM Pilots o. Video Cameras p. Scanners q. Alpha Smarts r. Smart Boards s. IPOD/MP3 Players 33. I actively look for new lesson plans that focus on my content area that integrate the use of technology. b. c. d. e. f.

Please answer each of the following questions.

166 1. In my classroom I have _______ computers. 2. I have a classroom website. YES/NO

3. Given a choice of technologies, _____% of my students are capable of selecting the most appropriate technology tool for a given task. 4. I do not feel like I have enough time to integrate technology into my classroom with all of the other things I have to accomplish in the curriculum. YES/NO 5. On an average week, I integrate computers or technology applications into my classroom A. Less than three hours per week B. At least three hours per week C. More than three hours per week

167 APPENDIX C: SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSENT

168

169

APPENDIX D: REQUEST TO BUILDING PRINCIPALS FOR PARTICIPATION

170 Dear Principals and good afternoon, I'm excited that you are allowing me to use your school as a part of my doctoral research studies. Before I can begin the actual study, I need a few things from each of you. I will be sending consent forms out in the next few weeks for the teachers to complete and return. They cannot participate in the study until their consent form has been returned. I will email each teacher once the surveys have been set up and released from the online survey place. From you, at the moment I need to know approximately how many teachers there are on your campus. The study will be open to all teachers; however, they are not required to participate. I look forward to working with you and your campus during this process. Thank you, Tonya Laliberte, MAED/CT

171 APPENDIX E: PARTICIPATION REQUEST STAFF E-MAIL

172 Dear Teacher, My name is Tonya Laliberte and I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on my Doctorate of Education (Ed.D) degree. I am conducting a research study entitled MIXED METHOD STUDY: EXPLORING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN K-12 CLASSROOMS. The purpose of the research study is to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the study will explore what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. The study will also explore particular barriers to technology integration. Your participation will involve the completion of either a semi-structured face-to-face interview, completion of an electronic survey/questionnaire, and signing of a consent form. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. The results of the research study may be published but your identity will remain confidential and your name will not be disclosed to any outside party. This research study will require approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour of your time for the completion of the interview. I will be requesting a time to meet with you for completion of the interview instrument. I will be sending out consent forms out in the next few weeks for you to complete and return. You cannot participate in the study until your consent form has been returned. I will email you once the interview schedule has been established. I want to thank you for your time and I look forward to working with you campus during this process.

173 APPENDIX F: NOTIFICATION OF PARTICIPATION

174

Thank you for returning your consent form and volunteering to participate in the proposed research study, a MIXED METHOD STUDY: EXPLORING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN K-12 CLASSROOMS. As a reminder, the purpose of the research study is to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the study will explore what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. The study will also explore particular barriers to technology integration. I wanted to notify you that the survey/questionnaire has been opened in Survey Monkey and will remain opened for two weeks, closing Saturday, February 7, 2009. As a reminder, the survey will require approximately 30-45 minutes of your time for the completion. You have been assigned an ID # that you will need to include with your survey. As a reminder, your identity will be anonymous. I want to thank you for your time and I look forward to sharing the study results with you upon completion of this process. Please use the following link to complete the survey. Your ID code is located beneath the survey link. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=YUGSXrqWECIqqAb9O88KMg_3d_3d Assigned ID #

175 APPENDIX G: INFORMED CONSENT

176 Title: Mixed Method Study: Exploring the use of Educational Technology Tools in K-12 Classrooms Dear Teacher, The following information is provided to help you decide whether you wish to participate in the present study. You should be aware that you are free to decide not to participate or to withdraw at any time without affecting your relationship with this organization. My name is Tonya Laliberte and I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on a Doctorate of Education (Ed.D) degree. I am conducting a research study entitled MIXED METHOD STUDY: EXPLORING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN K-12 CLASSROOMS. The purpose of the research study is to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the study will explore what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the study will explore particular barriers to technology integration. Your participation will involve the completion of an electronic survey and signing this consent form. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. The results of the research study may be published but your identity will remain confidential and your name will not be disclosed to any outside party. In this research, there are no foreseeable risks to you. Although there may be no direct benefit to you, a possible benefit of your participation is addressing some of the technology deficiencies found as a result of the study. If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at 817-689-2264 or email me at trlaliberte@verizon.net. As a participant in this study, you should understand the following: 1. You may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time without consequences. 2. Your identity will be kept anonymous. 3. Tonya Laliberte, the researcher, has thoroughly explained the parameters of the research study and all of my questions and concerns have been addressed. 4. If the interviews are recorded, you must grant permission for the researcher, Tonya Laliberte, to digitally record the interview. You understand that the information from the recorded interviews may be transcribed. The researcher will structure a coding process to assure that anonymity of your name is protected. 5. Data will be stored in a secure and locked area. The data will be held for a period of three years, and then destroyed.

177 By signing this form I acknowledge that I understand the nature of the study, the potential risks to me as a participant, and the means by which my identity will be kept confidential. My signature on this form also indicates that I am 18 years old or older and that I give my permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described.

Signature of the interviewee _____________________________ Date _____________ Signature of the researcher ______________________________ Date _____________ Printed Name: _______________________ School: ___________________________ Please check one of the following: ____ I volunteer to participate in the qualitative section of the research study. ____ I volunteer to participate in the quantitative section of the research study. ____ I volunteer to participate in either section of the research study.

178

APPENDIX H: LETTER CODING FOR SCHOOLS

179

School Name Independence Elementary School Parkview Elementary School Trinity Meadows Intermediate School Trinity Springs Middle School Fossil Ridge High School

School Code IES PVES TMIS TSMS FRHS

180 APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIREREVISED AFTER PILOT STUDY

181 Name (optional) 1. School 2. Assigned ID # 3. Grade level(s) you teach: a. K-4 b. 5-6 c. 7-8 d. 9-12

182 4. Choose one answer for each of the following questions.

Question Never or very rarely Curricular activities in my classroom rely mainly on textbooks as offered to developing my own course materials. I use lectures as a primary means to teach. I rely primarily on quizzes and paper and pencil tests/quizzes to grade in my class. Students in my class get the grade they earn on the first try. I seek correct answers to validate student learning. Students in my class spend time in small groups interpreting data and evaluating conclusions. Students in my class spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding. Students in my class are encouraged to ask questions when I present new information. Students in my class often learn content ideas from one another. Sometimes Very often or always

183
Discussions in my class allow students to be actively engaged in asking questions and discussing it as necessary. In my classroom, student explorations of the topic frequently precede formal presentation. I teach my content area to prepare my students to solve real-life problems. I encourage students to bring up new topics for discussion related to my content area. I check how well students in my class understand new ideas by alternative assessment techniques such as portfolios, presentations, presentations, etc.

184 6. Check the frequency in which you use each of the following items in your classroom with your students to keep students actively engaged to acquire academic content.
Question Never or very rarely Movie Making Software Wikis PowerPoint Presentations Scavenger Hunts Internet Internet images or video clips related to curriculum Video Conferencing Web Cams Mind-Mapping/Outlining Software Podcasts Interactive Web Tools (i.e. Websites, Webquests, etc.) Video streaming Blogging Spreadsheet (i.e. Microsoft Excel) Publishing Software (i.e. Microsoft Word, Microsoft Publisher) Digital Video Production Software (i.e. Sometimes Very often or always

185
iMovie, Windows Movie Maker, Videowave, etc.) District Purchased Software (i.e. Kidspiration, Inspiration, etc.) Presentation Software (i.e. Microsoft Power Point) Database Software (i.e. Microsoft Access) IPOD/MP3 Players Mobile Learning Devices (cell phones) Smart Boards Alpha Smarts Scanners Video Cameras PALM Pilots Computer Related Activities

7. I have a classroom website? Yes No 8. Please describe other technology tools you use to keep students actively engaged to acquire academic content. 9. Describe how technology tools are used in your classroom to support problemand project-based activities. 10. Describe how you integrate each of the following into your curriculum to keep students actively engaged to acquire content knowledge or skills.

186
Technology Web-based Technologies Blogging Mind-mapping software Internet Websites Video Streaming Podcasts Wikis Movie-Making Software Your Classroom Website District Purchased Software/Programs Personally Purchased Software/Programs Teacher Response

187 11. Describe how students in your class

Activity Use your classroom website Use each other to learn content ideas from one another Spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding Spend time in small groups interpreting data and evaluating conclusions Explore questions generated from their own experiences Explore the topic prior to formal presentations Are prepared to solve real-life problems Use information from different sources to solve problems within your content area Explore questions generated from their own experiences Spend time discussing a particular topic to gain a better understanding Discuss observations and data and receive feedback on their interpretations Teacher Response

12. Describe how you

Task Use questions to determine if students are logical Teacher Response

188
in their thinking Use different approaches to assess student mastery of the ideas you have taught in class Make the ideas in your class personally meaningful Allow your students to use each other to learn content ideas from one another Encourage students to ask questions when you present new information Teach your content area to prepare your students to solve real-life problems Use the learning cycle methodology for teaching in your own content area

13. Do you allow students to retake exams after additional instruction when they fail to demonstrate mastery of the content? Yes No 14. Describe the types of technology training your school district provides to you and how often. 15. Describe any barriers you have in the integration or acquisition of technology within your curriculum. 16. In my classroom I have ________ computers.

189 17. Given a choice of technologies, _______% of my students are capable of selecting the most appropriate technology tool for a given task. 18. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I do not have enough time to integrate technology into my classroom with all of the other things I have to accomplish in the curriculum. Agree Disagree 19. Each grading period ________% of the assignments or projects requires the use of technology. 20. On an average week I integrate computers or technology applications into my classroom _______. Less than 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week More than 3 hours per week 21. Comments/Concerns

190

APPENDIX J: NOTIFICATION OF PILOT STUDY PARTICIPATION

191

Thank you for returning your consent form and volunteering to participate in the proposed research study, a MIXED METHOD STUDY: EXPLORING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN K-12 CLASSROOMS. As a reminder, the purpose of the research study is to explore how teachers integrate educational technology tools to promote active academic engagement. Additionally, the study will explore what techniques or methods technologically proficient teachers use to promote active academic engagement. The study will also explore particular barriers to technology integration. I wanted to notify you that the survey/questionnaire has been opened in Survey Monkey and will remain opened for one week. As a reminder, the survey will require approximately 30-45 minutes of your time for the completion. You have been assigned an ID # that you will need to include with your survey. As a reminder, your identity will be anonymous. I want to thank you for your time and I look forward to sharing the study results with you upon completion of this process. Please use the following link to complete the survey. Your ID code is located beneath the survey link.

192

APPENDIX K: RESEARCH QUESTION 1 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES

193 1. How do technologically proficient teachers effectively use technology for active engagement among students in the K-12 classroom? H01: Technologically proficient teachers integrate a variety of computer applications and Web-based activities into their classroom a minimum of three times per week allowing students to complete project based learning activities. Ha1: Technologically proficient teachers do not integrate a variety of computer applications and Web-based activities into their classroom allowing students to complete project based learning activities.

194

Please describe how technology tools are used in your classroom to support problem- and project-based activities. Q 10
Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 Response Group work for filming various projects Research & for finding images Online research Probes, computers & software for labs; webquests None Research They arent No Response No Response Current Events No Response Research, presentations Research; data manipulation; online games; group production No Response No Response No Response Tutorial Websites; graphing calculators; smartboard No Response Research Research Research Learning.com Research No Response No Response No Response Research; processing data No Response No Response Educational websites to support curriculum No Response Answer not relevant Research; contacting field experts; computer programs to create and publish materials; FLIP video camera for presentations Answer not relevant Answer not relevant No Response

195
PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 Online websites to reinforce learning No Response Differentiated instruction PowerPoint presentations; CD creation Developing projects & research No Response Student created projects No Response Research; software (PowerPoint; Word); telephones for contacting field experts Design process; create products and inventions No Response Presentations; interactive whiteboards for review

196

Please describe other technology tools you use to keep students actively engaged to acquire academic content. Q 9
Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 Response No Response Brain Pop, Discovery Streaming, Interactive Websites None Document Reader & Microscope mounted cameras; Probeware Movie clips/video clips Hyper-studio software Computer Games Leap Frog Tools Infant simulator No others Elmo to help visualize problems & work through problem solving process Newscasts No Response No Response No Response No Response Graphing calculators & software No Response PowerPoints; interactive websites; video streaming Online research Calculators Document cameras; projector; digital cameras None No Response United streaming; Power Points, Excel, Word, Internet; online supplemental materials No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response DVD creation Laptops, library desktops, conference calls on speakerphone None No Response No Response Digital cameras No Response Tape recorders; audio books/literature Power Point presentations; video clips

197
TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 Computers & mobile devices No Response Lab tools, active response system No Response Document camera; projector Projectscreation of real world products No Response Active expressions; kids text answers

198

APPENDIX L: RESEARCH QUESTION 2 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES

TMIS 022 Online videos; view websites through projector Research; images; video/movie making websites/tools Web-based technologies

FRHS 009

FRHS 002

TMIS 008

TMIS 020

Participant ID

Daily researching lesson ideas (not integrated into curriculum)

Assessment; independent practice; online textbooks

three times per week.

Blogging

at least three times per week.

Mind-Mapping Software

teachers to promote active engagement?

Specific websitescontent specific View websites to get background information; real world connections Research; images Internet Websites

Specific websites to content; webquests; TAKS practice websites

Introduction of ideas/new topics

Incorporation into lecturescontent specific

Use very little, but when used applicable videos to content specific objectives

Applicable videos to content specific objectives

Acting/performan ce examples

Video Streaming

Do not currently, would like to podcast performances that are filmed Podcasts

Wikis

Ha1: Technologically proficient teachers fail to use a variety of web materials,

Editing films/commercials and other video projects Not fully operational, just implemented by district

Movie-Making Software

2. What techniques/methods are successfully used by technologically proficient

H01: Technologically proficient teachers use a variety of Web materials, computer

applications, and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement at least

Describe how you integrate each of the following into your curriculum to keep students actively engaged to acquire content knowledge or skills. Q 11

computer applications, and higher level thinking activities to promote active engagement

Class-room Website

199

CADD design program; programs specific to content area

Lab materials

Brain pop discover learning

District purchased software

Personally purchased programs

PVES 012 Research Allow students to visualize various concepts; builds on prior knowledge Watch videos on the web of experiments Websites to show activities Gain information; practice skills; stay informed; communication

TMIS 017

TMIS 024

IES 001

TSMS 003

IES 002

FRHS 003

TSMS 006

IES 11967

TMIS 004

TMIS 006

Concept mapping to organize thoughts/ideas Relate body systems, health topics to one another (concept mapping) Research Websites to enrich lessons

Nothing computer generated

Academic practice towards students exact needs; research Researching background information for novels, information for research papers Research; current events in science

Websites are listed on teacher webpage and they correspond with the bundles

Gain information; practice skills; stay informed; communicate

Videos to supplement concepts being taught Videos to supplement concepts being taught Presents material in an alternative way

Videos used to introduce new material and reteach old material

Quizzes, oral reading of material for modification purposes

Videos adding enrichment to lessons

Interviews and recording of products created to show understanding of topics taught

Clay animation projects

Yearly yearbook of classroom activities; student created movies to h f Does not support student learning

Communication: keeps parents informed

Communication: information regarding upcoming assignments, websites of interest Smartboard Inspiration for thinking maps

Communication; vocabulary; pertinent websites

Information; additional learning opportunities

200

Academic support of concepts; independent practice

CDs (software for math, language, vocabulary)

Academic support of concepts; independent practice

Vlog for classroom newscast; dissecting software

FRHS 011 To practice various skills Learning.com; funbrain.com; starfall.com; pearsonsuccessnet .com; istation; etools Graphing data; variety of websites allowing students to use models and demonstrations for labs Remediation; research; comparisons Tutorials

TMIS 013

IES 004

PVES 011

TMIS 025

PVES 013

TMIS 010

TMIS 027

TMIS 014

TMIS 026

FRHS 007

Daily exercises are web-based and quizzes are sometimes webbased

Researching or processing data

Brainpop; United Streaming; college sites containing interactive models; content specific websites to allow students to gain deeper Research; location of current events

Interactive sites to reinforce learning

United Streaming & BrainPop to introduce new material, reteach old material, and supplement concepts being

Location of new and creative ideas; science investigations; reinforce learning; research; teacher resources; help students get Activating background knowledge; used at the end of the unit to reteach and reemphasize key concepts

Videos used to introduce new material, reteach old material, and supplement concepts being taught

Videos used to introduce new material, reteach old material, and supplement concepts being taught

Infomercials; product choices; presentations

Communication tool with parents and consistent aid for students

Communication tool to parents

Communication tool for parents

Communication tool for parents

Parent information; homework links for practice; calendar of events

Mainly as a communication tool for the parents

201

Used for completion of daily work

To supplement classroom projects

Calculators and science software to build student understanding of technology and advantages of Free items Learning.com

Helps students with keystrokes on graphing calculators

TMIS 022 Research topics; practice math concepts Used to reinforce goals class is currently working on Google searches and interactive websites Sometimes used for reinforcing learning concepts Use of the smartboard to complete interactive activities that are web based Support project based activities Students research information prior to class discussion about it.

PVES 002

TMIS 006

PVES 005

TMIS 023

TMIS 027

FRHS 004

FRHS 010

TMIS 021

PVES 13365

FRHS 014

Teacher shows pictures to the students about different topics of study aligned to the bundles For tips and techniques; teaching students

Students use Gaggle; teacher posts a question

Graphic organizers to reinforce concepts content specific Used to reinforce goals class is currently working on Research current data on selected topics

Researching

United Streaming & Brain Pop to introduce new material, reteach old material, and supplement concepts being Viewing and learning from the experts

United Streaming to introduce new material, reteach old material, and supplement concepts being taught; relevancy

United Streaming & BrainPop to introduce new material, reteach old material, and supplement concepts being

United streaming to activate background knowledge; used to reteach and reemphasize key concepts Activating background knowledge; used at the end of the unit to reteach and reemphasize key concepts

FLIP video software and Movie Maker

Students have written, filmed and edited movies to prove d di f Communication tool for parents posting project directions and rubrics

Students create their own videos and use moviemaking software l b Issue assignments and communication to parents

Students have made commercials that parody ideas or concepts from li

202

Students work on targeted weaknesses

Used for teacher data and testing

Final Cut Pro for Macs, Avid for PCsvideo production software Keynote, Photoshop, and a variety of other adobe products

TSMS 005 Students complete 3 research papers a year. They use the Internet to complete the research. Communication with other students Internet research to enhance curriculum topic information; interactive websites that correspond to Webquests Research United streaming, occasional webquests Use a variety of tools to address specific skill deficits; interactive web sites

FRHS 008

FRHS 013

TMIS 018

PVES 010

TSMS 004

TMIS 020

TMIS 007

FRHS 012

PVES 001

Creation of concept maps

Research Internet research; locating pictures, images, videos Webquests and research Research Research

Research

Use a variety of tools to address specific skill deficits; interactive websites

Videos of related topics that correspond to curriculum especially in cases of places, time periods, or Students use this to record some of their personal writing Individualized lectures Digital curriculum as appropriate to subject area content

Evaluation of performances

United streaming to show videos to provide background information and visuals for the students. Produce performances, interviews, etc.

i-pod used for listening to literature on audio books

Audio books; listen to authors read their own work

FLIP cameras to make mini-films and use of movie making software Communication of current assignments, current objectives, calendar of upcoming events, reminders,

Editing performances, interviews, morning Update on vocabulary and current events

Communication tool---reminders about assignments and the actual posting of assignments

203

204 APPENDIX M: RESEARCH QUESTION 3 QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES

205 3. What do technologically proficient teachers perceive as barriers to technology integration? H01: Technologically proficient teachers perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications), administrative support, and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration. Ha1: Technologically proficient teachers do not perceive lack of resources (computers and computer applications), administrative support, and professional development as potential barriers to technology integration. QUAL Describe any barriers you have in the integration or acquisition of technology within your curriculum. Q16
Participant ID TMIS 020 Response We do not get much technology unless we suggest it and there are funds. Most funding is focused and spent at the high school level. Only have 1 computer lab and it is always in use. Not enough computers in the lab. None Time to grasp tech skills, time to plan lessons TIME Unreliable computersthey dont always work Lack of resources, unreliable computers Theme TMIS 004 Lack of resources, no tech available for when computers go on blink Funding Lack of Resources Lack of Resources Accessibility none time Unreliable resources Lack of resources Unreliable resources Lack of resources Lack of tech support from tech student developmental delays lack of resources

TMIS 008

FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006

IES 11967 TSMS 006

Students have developmental delays Lack of resources

206
FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 Lack of resources Time Working computers Student to computer ratio; weak wireless signal; battery life of laptops; time (preparation) TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 No student computers None Funding for resources Professional development (not conveniently offered) Lack of resources in the classroom Lack of resources in the classroom and laptop carts are never available Lack of available computers Unorganized resources, lack of communication regarding resources, lack of emphasis placed on integration lack of resources time working resources lack of resources Inconsistency with resources time lack of resources none funding professional development lack of resources lack of resources lack of resources unorganized resources usage not encouraged lack of training on curriculum implementation unreliable resources lack of lab space lack of student knowledge

PVES 013

TMIS 025

Lack of working computers, slow/not working Internet, lack of space in lab to accommodate classes, lack of prerequisite knowledge from students, lack of student education with computer usage and expectations, lack of student knowledge with regards to various technology applications, i.e. MS Word, PowerPoint, etc. Lack of student computers in the classroom (0); no computers in the science lab; no working technology in classroom; help desk requests not answered (8 weeks); lack of adequate technology for student use

lack of resources lack of tech support assistance lack of adequate

207
technology tools PVES 011 IES 004 None Lack of programs (submitted request 3 months ago, finally after 3 months received program access); lack of tech support assistance TMIS 013 FRHS 011 None Learning curve (students & teachers) FRHS 014 Accessibility and Time PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 Time None None Lack of drops for Internet access Lack of student computers; unable to use projector from teacher station Lack of working resources Lack of computers Lack of computers None Lack of technology Lack of student readiness Availability of resources; student lack of resources outside of class; difficulty acquiring resources; slow/antiquated none lack of available software lack of tech support assistance lack of equipment none lack of student knowledge lack of teacher knowledge lack of resources lack of time Time None None Lack of resources (internet drops) Lack of resources Nonworking equipment Nonworking equipment Lack of resources Lack of resources None Lack of resources Lack of student knowledge Availability of resources

TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012

208
computers TMIS 007 TMIS 020 Lack of resources Difficult to integrate things other than video or podcast; lack of training TMIS 018 FRHS 013 Lack of available resources Antiquated equipment; time FRHS 008 TSMS 005 Overarching Barrier None Lack of resources An overarching barrier noticed in further analysis through several questions in the questionnaire is that there is limited curricular support for the integration of technology and limited training for how to accomplish this goal. Acquisition of resources Antiquated equipment Lack of resources Lack of training Lack of teacher knowledge Lack of resources Difficulty with acquisition of resources Limited time Limited teacher knowledge Lack of resources Antiquated equipment Time None Lack of resources Limited curricular support Limited professional development in areas of relevancy

TSMS 004

Lack of classroom computers; difficulty accessing lab

PVES 010

Limited time and limited knowledge

209

Describe the types of technology training your school district provides to you and how often. Q15
Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 Response No Response No Response Annual technology update training At least 3 trainings per year (various tools) and annual updates Not much and not often Limited Classes available, good handouts Power Point, CLASS; not often Podcasting; promethean software; websites Smartboards No Response Trainings every nine weeks at the campus level (various technologies); new ways to use technologies Basic level training on current software and programs No Response No Response None given Much offered None given Send out computer techs to teach new things (websites, new email, DMAC) Basic computer skills Teacher communication or data A variety of training Not sure what exists: have to search for available trainings and I dont have time to search New teacher training Very little/fill up fast No response Periodic seminars; recurrent training; summer workshops Email; online gradebook K-Connect; email; websites 1-2 times per year New teacher training No Response None specified I do not know Updates; consultation None specified

210
TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 Curriculum training Excel, Unitedstreaming, Word, iStation Film simple usage Various technologies Podcasting workshops; software training during conference period Computer and application training No Response New software on campus No Response Microsoft Office programs, podcasting, video/film applications, varies, teachers choose based on need New technology purchased No Response Not specified

211

In my classroom I have ______ computers. Q 17

Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 Response 2 1 30 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 31 teacher 2 student 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2with 2 teachers in the room 54 student 1 teacher 1 4 2 No Response 30 1 2 6 1 11 3 0 1 2 5 1 working 1 not working 4 2 2 1 0 3 Notes

Shared between 5 teachers Shared lab access 16 computers

212
TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 Notes: 1 24 3 1 Many teachers indicated that they had only 1 computer in the classroom. Those with large numbers must be CATE or tech ed teachers.

One Computer classroom.

213

Given a choice of technologies, ______% of my students are capable of selecting the most appropriate technology tool for a given task. Q 18
Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 Response 70 40 50 50 100 50 30 0 70 75 20 85 80 50 20 75 50 50 50 75 33 25 10 25 90 No Response 100 75 No Response 100 75 50 90 65 No Response 90 50 50 No Response 95 95 50 Theme

214
TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 75 10 85 50 95 80

215

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I do not have enough time to integrate technology in my classroom with all of the other things that I have to accomplish in the curriculum. Q 19
Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 Agree X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Disagree X X

216
TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 X X X X

217

Each grading period ______% of the assignments or projects requires the use of technology. Q 20
Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 Response 1 25 25 25 10 50 5 0 25 10 10 25 25 10 20 50 50 10 10 25 10-15 2-5 10 No Response 15 No Response 95 10 0 10 10 70 80 0 0 50 25 20 0 10 0 25 50 No Response 60-70

218
FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 90 50 10

219

On an average week I integrate computers or technology applications into my classroom __________. Q 21

Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 Response < 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week At least 3 hours per week < 3 hours per week

220
TMIS 018 FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week > 3 hours per week

221

I have a classroom website?

Participant ID TMIS 020 TMIS 008 FRHS 002 FRHS 009 TMIS 022 TMIS 006 TMIS 004 IES 11967 TSMS 006 FRHS 003 IES 002 TSMS 003 IES 001 TMIS 024 TMIS 017 PVES 012 FRHS 007 TMIS 026 TMIS 014 TMIS 027 TMIS 010 PVES 013 TMIS 025 PVES 011 IES 004 TMIS 013 FRHS 011 FRHS 014 PVES 13365 TMIS 021 FRHS 010 FRHS 004 TMIS 027 TMIS 023 PVES 005 TMIS 006 PVES 002 TMIS 022 PVES 001 FRHS 012 TMIS 007 TMIS 020 TSMS 004 PVES 010 TMIS 018 Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X No X

222
FRHS 013 FRHS 008 TSMS 005 X X X

223 APPENDIX N: SERVER SECURITY

224 Survey Monkey Security How do you keep our data secure and where is it stored? As stated in our privacy policy, we will not use your data for our own purposes. The data you collect is kept private and confidential. You are the owner of all data collected or uploaded into the survey. In regards to the security of our infrastructure, here is an overview of our setup. We do offer SSL encryption for the survey link and survey pages during transmission. We are located in the US and all surveys and data are stored on our servers. The servers are kept at Sungard - www.sungard.com. Physical

Servers kept in locked cage Entry requires a passcard and biometric recognition Digital surveillance equipment Controls for temperature, humidity and smoke/fire detection Staffed 24/7

Network

Multiple independent connections to Tier 1 internet access providers Fully redundant OC-48 SONET Rings Uptime monitored every 5 minutes, with escalation to SurveyMonkey staff Firewall restricts access to all ports except 80 (http) and 443 (https) QualysGuard network security audits performed weekly. Hackersafe scans performed daily.

Hardware

Servers have redundant internal power supplies Data is on RAID 10, operating system on RAID 1 Database is log-shippped to standby server and can failover in less than one hour

Software

Code in ASP.NET 2.0, running on SQL Server 2005 and Windows 2003 Server Latest patches applied to all operating system and application files SSL encryption of all billing data and passwords Data backed up every hour internally Data backed up every night to centralized backup system, with offsite backups in event of catastrophe

What does SurveyMonkey do with the data or emails that I collect? We will not use the information collected from your surveys in any way, shape, or form. In addition, any other material you provide us (including images, email addresses, etc.) will be held in the strictest confidence.

225
We do not collect personally identifiable information about you except when you

specifically provide this information on a voluntary basis.

We will make every effort to ensure that whatever information you provide will

be maintained in a secure environment. However, even if you opt out of receiving any communications from SurveyMonkey.com, we reserve the right to contact you regarding your account status or any other matter that might affect our service to you and/or our records on you. Privacy Policy Log Files: As is true of most Websites, we gather certain information automatically and store it in log files. This information includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, browser type, internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp, and clickstream data. We use this information, which does not identify individual users, to analyze trends, to administer the site, to track users movements around the site and to gather demographic information about our user base as a whole. We do not link this automatically-collected data to personally identifiable information.