A Mixed Methods Study
A Mixed Methods Study
A Dissertation by
Carliza Bataller
Brandman University
Irvine, California
School of Education
August 2018
Committee in charge:
ProQuest 10935151
Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
BRANDMAN UNIVERSITY
August 2018
Technology Integration: A Mixed Methods Study of Best Practices of Technology
Copyright © 2018
by Carliza Bataller
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper would have never been written without the support, dedication, and
Leader, Dr. Cindy Petersen. A person could not ask for a better chair. Her patience,
expertise, and feedback allowed me to take this paper from concept to completion. Her
understanding of what I wanted to do helped guide me when I began to get lost. I would
not have been able to accomplish this difficult challenge without her editing,
encouragement, and support. She is a true educator, lifelong learner, and an inspiration to
To my cohort family, you have the patience of saints, the ability to turn an okay
idea into a better piece of writing, and the intellect people can only hope to have. I am
lucky to have you on my side and as friends. You all helped me each year to progress
through this program and help me craft my concept for this paper; for that I am so
grateful to have had you as a learning group and exemplar models of a leader. You are
brilliant and such a wonderful set of friends. It has been quite a journey one that I could
Sharon Herpin I am so grateful for your help and carrying me through the finish
line. Your expertise is priceless, and I am forever grateful for your stellar direction and
through this program and used you as guinea pigs. You have taught me a lot and I am
incessantly grateful for everything each of you has done to support me. Everyone I work
iv
with daily, I thank you for your mentorship, leadership, and encouragement. I am one
fortunate person!
Shirley Bargamento, Mom, you have given me the love for education and the
opportunity to receive it. I am so grateful to have you as my mom. You have given me
an amazing life, a stable home to grow up in, and the foundation of love in my home. I
have looked up to you as the person who has provided me with the best in life. Thank
you for all you have done over my life to get me to this day. Regino Bataller, dad, your
dreams for me carry me forward. Thank you for always believing in me and wanting
Thank you to my brilliant and incredibly beautiful daughter, Raquel, her gifted,
kind, and wise husband, Mike (the best son-in-law the world) and my amazing, funny,
and incredible grandsons, Trent and Brock. You are my reasons for living, my heart and
soul, and the reason this world is so beautiful. You all motivate me to be better at
To all my family and friends, I could not have made it without you, your
unconditional love and support, and understanding that I was working on something new
and unknown to me and despite that you kept encouraging me and cheering me on. You
all have pushed me, prayed for me, and inspired me to accomplish what at times seemed
like the impossible. I thank God for the blessing of all of you and the learning I have and
continue to do.
v
ABSTRACT
by Carliza Bataller
Purpose: The purpose of this mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to
identify and describe best practices in technology integration in middle school classrooms
as perceived by expert middle school teachers. Additionally, it was the purpose of the
study to determine the most important best practices and perceived barriers to successful
Methodology: This study included a survey sent to 34 middle school teachers from five
Data were gathered from the initial survey instrument and followed up by interviews with
participant volunteers.
Findings: Findings from this study suggested middle school best practices for technology
integration need to include equitable access, structure and clear limits, and content
management system.
Conclusions: The conclusions from this study suggested successful middle school
developmental needs for students to thrive. Expert middle school technology integration
teachers stated the most important best practice was utilizing tech-infused, authentic,
vi
real-world project/problem issues relevant to today’s world while incorporating core
frequency and type of technology use by teachers and students to identify any
relationships that exists, and to identify ways to increase the frequency of student
phenomenological study from the middle school student perspective regarding use of
technology both inside and beyond the school day. Conduct a multi-case mixed methods
explanatory study describing best practices for technology integration across three
identified levels (K-5, 6-8, 9-12) providing a more comprehensive perspective across the
K-12 system. A case study should be done of three high-performing middle schools to
deployed 1:1 initiatives to identify and describe the best practices for leading a 1:1
technology initiatives.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1
Background ................................................................................................................... 3
Globalization ........................................................................................................... 3
Globalization and Education ................................................................................... 3
Evolution of Education ........................................................................................... 4
Today’s Educational Environment ......................................................................... 5
Technology in Education ........................................................................................ 5
History of Technology Integration in U.S. Education ............................................ 6
Middle School History ............................................................................................ 7
Developmentally Unique Middle School Students ................................................. 7
Middle School Population: A Unique Generation of Digital Natives .................... 8
Technology Integration Best Practices Promote Changing Teacher Role .............. 8
Technology Integration Models and Standards of Practice .................................... 9
Technology Models .............................................................................................. 10
Technology Integration in Middle School ............................................................ 12
Barriers Causing Ineffective Technology Integration........................................... 14
Statement of the Research Problem ............................................................................ 16
Research Gap ........................................................................................................ 17
Purpose Statement ....................................................................................................... 18
Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 18
Significance of the Problem ........................................................................................ 18
Definitions................................................................................................................... 20
Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 21
Organization of the Study ........................................................................................... 22
viii
Beliefs ................................................................................................................... 71
Time ...................................................................................................................... 72
Professional Development .................................................................................... 72
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 73
ix
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 148
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 7. Participant Use of Digital Tools and Resources (ISTE Standard 6) ................... 97
Table 10. Student Use of Technology for Research and Problem-Solving .................... 100
Table 14. 21st Century Skills Addressed in the Classroom (ISTE Standards 1,3,4,5,7) . 104
Table 15. Importance of Modeling Digital Citizenship (ISTE Standards 1,2,7) ............ 105
Table 16. Practices Used to Support Success with Digital Tools and Resources ........... 107
Table 17. Practices to Support Student Success in Meeting the Learning Objectives ... 108
Table 18. Practices in Support of Effective Student Learning and Assessments ........... 109
Table 19. Technology for Research and Problem-Solving (ISTE Standards 3,4,5) ....... 111
Table 20. Addressing Needs of Adolescents (ISTE Standards 2,5) ............................... 113
Table 21. Addressing the Needs of the Digital Generation (ISTE Standards 1,6) ......... 116
Table 22. Addressing 21st Century Skills in the Classroom (ISTE Standards 3,5,7) ..... 116
xi
Table 23. Most Successful Technology-Based Lesson/Learning Activity ..................... 118
Table 24. Reasons for Successful Technology Integrated Lessons ................................ 119
Table 25. Judging the Effectiveness of Lessons based on Student Achievement .......... 120
Table 26. Technology Tools Used for their Most Successful Lesson ............................ 121
Table 28. Barriers to Integrating Technology into Teaching and Learning ................... 123
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
xiii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
To give our children the chance to live out their dreams in a world that’s never been
more competitive, we will equip tens of thousands of schools, community colleges, and
public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries. We’ll provide new
computers, new technology, and new training for teachers so that students in Chicago
and Boston can compete with kids in Beijing for the high-tech, high-wage jobs of the
future.
—President Barack Obama
discoveries that changed history (Digital History, 2016). These changes now challenge
educators in how to provide the best education possible utilizing technology to enhance
the learning environment and support the development of college- and career-ready
students (EdTech Review, 2016). Educators need to embrace effective, current, and
levels of student engagement and learning (Edutopia, 2007; Hertz, 2010; Hew & Brush,
2007; Javeri & Persichitte, 2007). Most educators recognize education must mirror the
social and technological changes occurring and effectively apply them to students in a
Over the last century, technology dramatically changed the way young people
live. Technology created new necessities and practices of aligning student expectations
of engagement in education, which took on myriad forms to meet the needs of students
known as digital natives, also known as Generation Z (Ito et al., 2008; Williams, 2015).
Students currently in middle school are identified as Generation Z digital natives due to
being raised during the age of digital innovations; they are familiar with computers, the
Internet, and computer applications from an early age (Ito et al., 2008). This generation
of students expects learning to be engaging and to provide explicit and implicit learning
1
experiences individualized at their level, while being integrated with technology in every
facet of their education (Nemko, 2014; Williams, 2015). This is the reality in
communities across the nation (Nemko, 2014). The time has come to support
learning of critical skills wherein they are better prepared for the future.
Student lives are changing because of technology; to keep pace with these
(Horst et. al., 2008). These changes force educators to make decisions regarding
instructional practices in conjunction with the use of technology to ensure the greatest
environments must engage students to render positive results for student learning and
need daily examination (Dede, 2014). The problem is not whether to use technology,
but rather how technologies should be used to support instructional outcomes (Javeri &
Persichitte, 2007).
The best way to invest in new technologies for deeper learning is to begin by
acknowledging context matters and tools must be flexible enough to serve the given
school, teachers, students, curriculum, and culture (Fullan & Donnelly, 2013). In short,
such tools should be designed with local adaptations in mind (Dede, 2014; United States
exist to use technology to change the nature of learning, although the evidence of what
works is still emerging, which is why discovering best practices used by teacher experts
2
Background
This section contains a brief overview of the literature to set the stage for the
technology integration.
Globalization
Scudero (2015) suggested economic globalization was the catalyst for change
mandating why teaching and learning can no longer be the skill development of the past.
This change driver makes it necessary to shift learning from preparation of skilled
factory work to work in a global society based on technology (Dede, 2014; Ferdig &
Kennedy, 2014; Scudero, 2015). Innovative uses of technology with access of all types
commerce, and understand cultures, and it drives the world today in a knowledge
economy like never before (Burbules & Torres, 2000; Fullan, 2013; Wood, 2008).
Technology and the use of the Internet is expanding globalization and driving the need
to change education.
The previous century differed in the skill set needed to go to college and find a
job (Partnership for 21st Century Skills [P21], 2011). Prior to the 1960s, the workforce
3
provided jobs where employees were able to remain for their entire career. People held
the same position with the same company until they retired (Friedman & Mandelbaum,
2011; P21, 2011). With the combination of globalization and information technology,
the world changed, evolving into a global economy driven by innovative industries,
services, products, markets, and politics (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011; Mahunik,
2014). These changes resulted in an employment-poor society where the market expects
more for less, more products and service for less money, resulting in fewer jobs
(Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011; P21, 2011). “The need for different societies to
compete in a world where knowledge is a principle currency has turned the organization
and purpose of education systems into key factors for relative competitiveness”
Evolution of Education
Over the past 50 years, the pendulum of changes in education went from no
under No Child Left Behind (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2014). To equalize education
nationwide and ensure equitable educational opportunities for all students, passing the
test became the focus, which resulted in loss of skill development that led to college
and/or career (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011). Students were faced with having to
remediate their education to meet the needs of the workforce to get a job or be accepted
into college to compete in the global market place (Freidman & Mandelbaum, 2011;
USDE, 2010). In other words, the public school system was missing the mark in
4
Today’s Educational Environment
2010), but fundamentally little else changed. Traditional constructs include fixed
grades, rigid curriculum, and teachers who are keepers and distributors of knowledge
(Fullan, 2013; Goleman & Senge, 2014). America’s public schools are tasked to
educate diverse students despite increasing class sizes, persistent poverty, educational
and learning at a time when the nation is struggling to yield a productive, skilled
students with the skills to compete in the 21st century global economy (Darling-
Technology in Education
Technological advances brought about many design changes and new methods to
education (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). The use of technology in the classroom changed
significantly over the past few decades from its beginning in the 1960s (Becker, 2001).
Regarding hardware, the public education system went from no computers, to one
computer in an entire school, to computer labs, and evolving more recently toward a
5
one-to-one student to computer ratio (Becker, 2001). Technology innovations and
integrations rapidly changed in the last 20 years; prior to the Internet, technology in the
classroom consisted of films or visual and auditory aids. After the 1970s, computers
started entering schools and now Internet enabled devices are in the hands of students
(Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010). The need to continue to change learning in classrooms
to match the world students will live in is essential, and to discover how and what that
looks like specifically at the middle school level could greatly help.
which grew in use and availability with Internet access and more powerful computers
(Chung, 2007). Prior to the Internet, technology in the classroom consisted of visual
aids used on an overhead projector, films seen on movie cameras shared among
buildings, and/or lantern slides that provided pictures to enhance the topic of learning.
The use of radios, videocassette recorders, and televisions supported the delivery of
instruction into the learning environment (Chung, 2007). In the 1960s, the visionary
work of coding with students became the catalyst of integration of technology using
computers to enhance learning and its use in the classroom (Boss, 2011; Chung, 2007;
Reiser & Dempsey, 2007). After the 1970s, computers started entering schools and now
it is common practice for students to research on their own devices and use the Internet
to gather information (Boss, 2011). Technology innovations changed the tools used in
learning, evolving from one computer in the school to having devices in the hands of
each student with the goal of using one-to-one technology in conjunction with a learning
6
management system (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2016;
USDE, 2017).
Middle school education in the United States evolved from the one room
developmental needs led to the categorization into specific grade levels; elementary was
distributed over eight years and high school distributed into four levels (Yecke, 2005).
Middle school philosophy found its beginning in the early 1900s with the first
these schools called in-between schools first surfaced in the United States closer to the
1910s (Gloer, 2007). Middle school continues to evolve and success in academic arenas
are proving middle schools are remarkable academic institutions supporting the overall
stimulated curiosity, creative processes, and reasoning (Drolet & Arcand, 2012;
years old as adolescence, a time when growth of strength, cognitive competencies, and
sense of purpose formed. Middle school focuses on the developmental needs of youths
in early adolescents, ages 10 to 14 (Lee & Smith, 1993). Through the developmental
7
adolescents struggled with are intellectual, biological, physiological, emotional, social,
and academical processes (Lee & Smith, 1993). Understanding adolescent development
is critical for adults and educators who support them in that they can continue to educate
young adults in their journey through these tumultuous years (Fitzgerald, 2005).
This upcoming generation is different from others who came before (Ito et al., 2008).
(Buckingham, 2007; Ito, 2013; Ito et al., 2008; Velez, 2012). Social life is inundated
with social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn (Buckingham, 2007, Velez,
2012). People can view into the lives of each other quickly and regularly, without ever
physically being in each other’s presence (Ito et al., 2008). Technology is pervasive;
recognizing and including this in making education relevant to students as they grow
and prepare for the future is vital. Identifying best practices effective for middle school
The model of education where the teacher transmits information through lectures
and textbooks is ineffective for student learning (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Detwiller,
2007; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012; Velez, 2012). Additionally, the role of technology in the
classroom and effective use and implementation practices by educators is crucial to how
problem-based learning take a different approach from the traditional classroom. These
8
new ways of teaching in a technology rich classroom foster a successful transition from
2006; Saulnier, 2008). Fullan and Donnelly (2013) identified the teacher role becoming
a change agent, an activator of learning. This role includes activities that involve
reciprocal teaching where teacher and student learn from each other, ongoing feedback,
challenging goals where both teacher and student participate in setting ambitious and
achievable goals.
Effective technology integration must happen across the curriculum in ways that
deepen and enhance the learning process (Fullan, 2013; Marzano, 2015). It must
support four key components of learning: (a) active engagement, (b) participation in
groups, (c) frequent interaction and feedback, and (d) connection to real-world experts
technology is routine and transparent, and when technology supports curricular goals
(Earle, 2002; Edutopia, 2014; Ertmer, 2005). Rose (2008) concluded, “More research
that highlights the best practices of teachers who use technology successfully…is
competency in a given area and can be used as a guide for goals to reach (Morphew,
2012). Examples of performance indicators aligned with the goals of preparing students
for college and career are the ISTE standards, which support the use of technology in
9
through proper use of technology in education. It its work, ISTE developed
advocacy, and leadership for innovation to improve teaching, learning, and advancing
education (Williamson & Redish, 2009). ISTE and the Center for Applied Research in
Standards for Teachers (NETS) to guide and provide a level of professionalism and
Technology Models
Koehler (2008) put together a conceptual tool to assist teachers in planning lessons that
Knowledge (TPACK) framework provides greater depth of technology and its use with
content and pedagogy, recognizing these areas are seamless in use to provide effective
understanding that arises from multiple interactions with content, pedagogy, and
technological knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2008). The framework requires equal
10
SAMR model. Another conceptual tool helpful in clarifying teacher practices
with technology integration is the SAMR model developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura
assist with the question of what types of technology are best to use for optimal student
These words build off Blooms Taxonomy to strengthen learning to higher levels of
Curriculum developers and educators can utilize SAMR to verify if the lesson
design provides the level of academic rigor they were aiming for in the content objective
(Puentedura, 2012). The continuum of SAMR aligned and connected to the hierarchy of
All these models of thinking help guide educators in developing lessons to meet desired
outcomes and guide what types of questions and activities to meet that goal (Schrock,
2013). SAMR is similar to these models and adds another level of depth incorporating
Levels of Teaching Innovation (LoTi) framework in 1995. LoTi provides a tool for
supports cognitively complex learning tasks (Moersh, 1995). The LoTi framework was
field-tested throughout the United States, with several iterations. Currently the
implementation based on review of classroom use and type of learning activity (Moersh,
11
1995). LoTi and the other frameworks provide examples of technology integration tools
As of 2009, Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project discovered
93% of American teens, ages 12 to 17, went online (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr,
2010). These data showed most students were online in one way or another. If being
help keep students engaged, and engaged students apply themselves more resulting in
deeper learning (Magna & Marzano, 2014). Engagement in learning is essential for
knowledge acquisition and understanding (Casey, Giedd, & Thomas, 2000; Cennamo et
al., 2014). This highlights why using technology such as the Internet, social media, web
that connect to their lives resulting in deeper learning, retention, and application of
A study in 2008 asked 4,000 middle school students what they needed to be
engaged and academically successful in school (Spires, Lee, Turner, & Johnson, 2008).
The students reported using computers more in school and home and developing high
levels of computer skills could help (Spires et al., 2008). The study also supported
connecting to middle school student interests, although it did not detail what effective
Petty (2012) noted technology was a successful avenue to meet middle school
student needs and help them be more engaged in cognitively complex tasks when used
effectively. Technology integration was categorized into three main strands: (1)
12
interactive, (2) learning experiences and assessment, and (3) research and problem-
solving. Petty (2012) found interactive applications provided learning activities that
positive social interactions with adults and peers, frequent transitions, and social-based
encouraging active participation where students set, monitor, and manage their learning
to meet their goals empowers adolescents to take ownership of their learning and
progress (Dede, 2014; DiPetro, Ferdig, Black, Preston, 2008; Ertmer, 2005; Petty,
2012).
Digital resources that engaged and appealed to student developmental needs gave
students a voice and choice (New Pedagogies for Deeper Learning Global Partnership,
2014). Students need to become contributing participants in the learning design as goals
are set, which ensures learning outcomes are clear and processes involved to reach the
goal are attainable and understood (Lenz & Kingston, 2016). Furthermore, interactive
learning environments for effective technology integration need to sustain a climate and
culture for learning through differentiated tools and strategies so access to curricula is
available to all (New Pedagogies for Deeper Learning Global Partnership, 2014).
Educators today have the power to change the world in how they respond,
implement, and integrate emerging technology. However, with the use of technology
comes the resistance to change (DiPetro et al., 2008). Additionally, best practices are
still being defined and although many resources exist, how to best utilize resources for
13
Petty, 2012). Several different barriers may hinder effective technology integration and
Over the past decade, with the massive penetration of technology into
achievement were disappointing (Avidov-Ungar & Eshet-Alkalai, 2014; Hew & Brush,
technology integration into educational organizations was lacking due to key factors
resources and funding, lack of skills, lack of time, lack of technical support, and limited
knowledge (Boss, 2008; Ertmer, 1999; Hew & Brush, 2007). One barrier to effective
need educators who effectively integrate technology with best practices and recognize
the difference between technology taking over the classroom versus effective integration
The struggle of how and when to use technology are constant questions for
Figuring how to live and learn with gadgets is still a conundrum. This is
part of an early stage in a new more radical improvement cycle. Amid the
14
However, Fullan (2013) suggested that unless effectively used to engage students
and deepen learning in cognitively complex tasks, technology was ineffective. The goal
is to understand how to organize the use of ever expanding technologies that match
(2013) called the sorting out processes. One of the steps to help with the sorting out
Leading Education by Advancing Digital (LEAD) Commission set forth to address and
reverse the growing inequities regarding digital learning access between high- and low-
income students and school districts (LEAD, 2012). Pew Internet & American Life
Project reported many digital tools are widely used in the classroom, but teachers worry
about inequity, creating digital divides when it came to student access to technology
(Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, & Friedrich, 2013). Teachers are concerned and face many
obstacles when they bring technology to low-income students (Purcell et al., 2013).
Comcast (n.d.) created the Internet Essentials initiative to break down barriers to digital
literacy and affordability. The initiative allows industry leaders to collaborate with
government officials to provide families of students who receive free school lunches
with low cost Internet (Comcast, n.d.). The partnerships with Comcast helps further
James (2009), teachers were categorized based on their beliefs, motivations, and
practices. Teachers who believed using technology in the classroom benefited student
15
learning and fit well with curriculum overcame barriers and used technology regularly.
However, teachers with a limited approach created a barrier in their own use based on
their perception. Attitudes and beliefs influence the day-to-day decisions and choices of
Despite barriers that influence the successful integration of technology (e.g., lack of
funding, training, capacity, equipment), success still occurred (Fullan & Langworthy,
2014).
and be career ready (P21, 2008). However, with the current educational environment,
the public education system needs continued refinement to support the development of
graduates ready for college and/or career (21st Century Workforce Commission, 2000).
had tremendous impact in the classroom (Brush, 1997). The focus of the study was the
emphasis on student access to information outside the classroom and improved student
whether technology works in the classroom is not the primary point; the real concern is
when and under what circumstances technology is effective for engaging and supporting
deeper learning environments for student growth and understanding (Fullan, 2013).
Like any other resource, teachers must come up with pedagogy, practices, strategies, and
promise for changing the quality of teaching and learning in schools when effectively
16
applied (Earle, 2002; Ertmer, 1999). However, not enough is known about best
practices to implement technology into middle school classrooms and the teacher skills
necessary to be successful (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014; Hew & Brush, 2007). The
still needed.
provide them with skills to navigate the global world, teachers need innovative practices
of their own (Fullan, 2013). Research was conducted regarding how perception
impacted teacher technology integration (Boland & Oigara, 2008; Garthwait & Weller,
necessary before the field can join the current educational reform movement” (p. 143).
Further research on what specific strategies, practices, and tools are effective in
technology integration is needed (Horn & Staker, 2014; Javeri, & Persichitte, 2007).
How and what is the best way to integrate technology in classrooms is still vague and
complex.
Research Gap
Margaret Honey at the Education Development Center testified before the U.S.
Senate that one could find ample empirical evidence that technology had a positive
impact with the right conditions in place (Honey, Culp, & Carrigg, 2000). She
concluded for technology to support real gains in educational outcomes, six factors must
technology resources, time, and evaluation (Honey et al., 2000). Additionally, Norris,
17
critical conditions as access to technology and time on task, adequate teacher
technology integration, a gap was found regarding the combination of best practices and
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to identify
perceived by expert middle school teachers. Additionally, it was the purpose of the
study to determine the most important best practices and perceived barriers to successful
Research Questions
Schrum and Glasset (2006) stated education technology was widely available in
schools due to large investments over the past two decades; however, the literature
touching almost every part of people’s lives, communities, and homes. Yet most
18
schools lag far behind when it comes to integrating technology into classroom learning
(Christensen, 2011; Edutopia, 2014). Many are just beginning to explore the true
potential technology offers for teaching and learning (Christensen, 2009). Properly
used, technology could help students acquire skills needed to survive in a complex,
highly technological economy (Edutopia, 2014; Ito, 2013; Luckin, Bligh, Manches,
Ainsworth, Crook, & Noss, 2012; Wenglinsky, 2005). Integrating technology into
classroom instruction means more than teaching basic computer skills and software
integration in middle school classrooms (Moeller & Reitzes, 2011). Some studies based
on best practices and technology integration are available. However, there is a gap in
middle school teachers. This study intended to fill the gap in research regarding best
Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) stated it was no longer enough to just highlight the
top practitioners in the teaching field, but to learn from them and build the capacity of
others. Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) called this the professional capital of the industry,
wherein effective systems are developed to maximize student learning. The current
research could assist middle school teachers to be more cognizant about how to
purposefully and successfully integrate technology based on the understanding and best
practices provided from expert practitioners in the field. It could also help identify how
19
expert technology integration teachers overcame barriers to implementation. This
research may also be utilized by educational leaders to best support middle school
when students experience early adolescence and unique developmental needs (social,
emotional, and metacognitive). By embracing this unique space and researching best
practices of technology integration for middle schools, the researcher could support
Definitions
Best practices. Existing practices that already possess a high level of widely
(Barbour et al., 2011; Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2010). Blended
learning is defined as any time a student learns in part from a supervised brick-and-
mortar location away from home and in part through online delivery with some element
of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace; often used synonymously with
2011).
technology practices and resources to improve learning (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008).
teaching sixth, seventh, or eighth grades in a public school in California located within
20
the specified counties (Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, and Solano) who taught
for at least three years integrating technology. Experts also had specific training or
software and provide a structured learning environment. The instruction can take place
over the Internet with the teacher and student separated geographically; used
interchangeably with virtual learning, cyber learning, and e-learning. (Barbour et al.,
seamlessly throughout the curriculum, not just occasional use (Molenda, 2008).
Technology integration is the regular, daily use of digital devices (hardware and
calculators, audio/video recorders, laptops, tablets, and digital devices (Rose, 2008).
Delimitations
This study was delimited to expert middle school teachers in five counties within
northern California. More specifically, the study was delimitated to include expert
21
middle school teachers who integrate technology in their classrooms and met the
following criteria:
California within the specified five counties (Contra Costa, Marin, Napa,
superintendent
This study begins with an overview of the problem, its significance within public
education specifically middle school classrooms, and the topic of best practices used by
expert teachers of middle school classes. Chapter II reviews existing literature regarding
the digital world and interconnectedness, and other relevant topics related to technology
integration and education. Chapter III is presented the research design, population,
sample, methods of data collection and analysis, limitations, validity and reliability of
the study design, and ethical considerations. Research findings are presented in Chapter
IV, including tables and narratives analyzing the findings of the study. Chapter five,
includes a summary of the study and a discussion of the major findings, unexpected
22
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter begins with a brief introduction to the topic studied and an
review of the literature. A synthesis matrix was created to help organize the literature
school learners and their specific needs, technology best practices in middle school, and
barriers preventing successful technology integration. The first section details global
highlighting the evolution of education and technology integration in the United States.
The next section discusses middle school learners and their developmental needs. The
schools and middle school technology best practices. The fourth section covers barriers
and the need to identify best practices in middle school is essential (Pacansky-Brock,
2013). The purpose of this mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to identify
expert middle school teachers. Additionally, it was the purpose of this study to
23
determine the most important best practices and barriers to successful technology
Globalization
people and organizations of differing nations like never before (Fullan, 2013; Wood,
2008). The digital revolution is taking over the world and transforming work and daily
across the world, and impact structures, practices, and educational programs. Wood
(2008) defined globalization in an enlightening way using the analogy of the force from
the movie Star Wars. Wood (2008) explained globalization was like the force because it
of sorts, with an uncertain agency that binds the countries of the world together,
Thomas Freidman (2005) in his book The World is Flat contended the
confluence of events flattened the world in a unified global community, knitting most
nations together and leveling the playing field of global competitiveness. Freidman
(2005) emphasized the need to prepare individuals to develop skills to navigate the
global world, utilize new technologies, maintain a growth mindset, adapt, participate,
down side in that it produces inequities and widens disparity between the haves and have
undeveloped nations cannot even access the playing field and do not benefit from the
global capital of the knowledge economy, free trade, and inexpensive labor (Ghemawat,
24
2007). Whether globalization benefits a nation is dependent on the processes affecting
The 20th century differed in the skill set needed to find a job or go to college
(Freidman & Mandelbaum, 2011). In the 20th century, people remained at the same job
most of their adult life (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). Many had the same position with
the same company until they retired (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011; Partnership for
21st Century Learning [P21], 2011). With the combination of globalization and
information technology, the world evolved into a global economy driven by innovative
industries, services, products, markets, and politics (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011;
Mahunik, 2014). These changes resulted in an employment poor society where the
market expects more for less; more products and service for less money, resulting in
fewer jobs (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011; P21, 2011). “The need for different
societies to compete in a world where knowledge is a principle currency has turned the
organization and purpose of education systems into key factors for relative
global society are pervasive, causing change in education. Fullan and Langworthy
25
Figure 1. How New Pedagogies are Different. Source: Fullan and Langworthy (2014).
corporations, organizations, and public and private members who value the nation’s
workforce and saw the need to guide education to develop college- and career-ready
and USDE. P21 and its members provide tools and resources to help the United States
education system clarify essential skills students need to be successful in college, career,
and life (P21, 2011). These partnerships created P21, providing the information of what
skill development is needed based on the global economy taking hold of the world today
and the need to change how and what is taught to today’s generation of students.
In this modern time, companies look for employees who demonstrate they are
communicators (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011; P21, 2008; Petersen, 2010). P21
26
refers to a specific set of competencies as a 21st century skill and stresses how 21st
century skills are an essential requirement for students to succeed (Petersen, 2010).
These competencies include mastery in core subjects and 21st century learning themes,
media and technology literacy, learning and innovations skills, and life and career skills
(P21, 2008).
The framework developed by P21 (2011) contains six elements for 21st century
skills and learning. This framework describes what 21st century students need to be
successful in college, career, and life. Five elements of student outcomes identified by
Employment sectors today are searching for individuals who can navigate
creative, and are innovative contributors to the organizations in which they work
(Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011). Evidence supporting this can be found in cooperative
partnerships. For example, Cisco, Intel, and Microsoft collaborated to form Partners in
Education Transformation, which discovered the countries with the largest economies
information drives the educational policies needed to provide students with a curriculum
27
that supports 21st century skill development integrated with technology (Friedman &
Evolution of Education
The work of schools is demanding. The United States inherited the factory
model of education from the Industrial Age when schools were about training factory
workers en masse (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011; Goleman & Senge, 2014). To
maximize human potential and develop higher levels of learning and skills, today’s
Additionally, schools need to focus on growing human beings while building student
capacity. This would result in outcomes where students are learning how to think in
ways that provide diverse 21st century skill development to meet ever-changing global
workforce needs and be employable or able to move on to the next level of education
(Goleman & Senge, 2014; Mahunik, 2014). The challenge of improving quality
instruction with emerging technologies creates a new paradigm of teaching not solely
based on acquired knowledge (Goleman & Senge, 2014; Mahunik, 2014). Education
evolved over the years from the Industrial Age to the Global Age.
States in their report, A Nation at Risk. Findings from this report indicated student
achievement scores were declining and far below the achievement levels of other
countries. American students were not developing higher order thinking skills or
meeting the demands needed for the workforce (National Commission on Excellence in
28
Education, 1983). Educational leaders took this report seriously and a call to action
emerged.
Another recommendation stemming from the 1983 report was the development
English, mathematics, science, history, and geography by 2000; and (2) students were to
be first in the world’s achievement scores in math and science by 2000. To determine
criteria and compliance toward achievement of these goals, standards were needed in
Thus, the standards movement in education evolved and now impacts curriculum
designed, teaching, and learning. Prior to 1983, there was little discourse of standards in
education in the United States (Cennamo et al., 2014; Wenglinsky, 2005; Wong, 2012).
curricular standards for specific disciplines (Cennamo et al., 2014; Wenglinsky, 2005;
Wong, 2012). Standards define knowledge and skills students should gain during
kindergarten through 12th grade to graduate high school able to succeed in entry-level
ensure parents and teachers have a common understanding of what students are expected
students. No Child Left Behind (NCLB), enacted in 2001, was created to provide
accountability measures in the public school system. This was an attempt to require
consistent use of standards throughout the nation. Under NCLB, states were required to
29
administer assessments to measure student performance; these accountability measures
were to ensure federal funds were used as intended (W. Hayes, 2004; Peterson, 2010).
NCLB’s premise was to promote equity in education and support disadvantaged groups
(W. Hayes, 2004). Conversely, the need for students to meet growth targets put
emphasis on teaching to the test instead of critical thinking skills (Wagner, 2008).
for college and career (P21, 2008). The global workforce thrives on a knowledge-based
service economy where workers need technology skills that include proficiencies in
(Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011; Goleman & Senge, 2014; Mahunik, 2014; P21, 2011).
learning, creativity, and innovation (P21, 2011; Goleman & Senge, 2014; Wagner,
2008).
past decade (USDE, 2010). However, fundamentally little else changed (Fullan &
Langworthy, 2014). Constructs remained fixed grades, rigid curricula, and teachers as
the focus of the classroom and distributor of knowledge (Fullan, 2013; Goleman &
Senge, 2014). America’s public schools are tasked to educate increased numbers
diverse students who come with a host of other challenges such as (a) persistent poverty,
(b) changing family patterns, (c) inadequate community supports, (d) limited access to
technology, (e) limited English proficiency, and (f) safety concerns (Darling-Hammond,
2010).
30
Integrating technology in the classroom is creating innovations for teaching and
learning at a time when the nation is struggling to yield a productive, skilled workforce
federal, state, and local budget deficits with uncertain funding challenge the educational
to provide students with the skills to compete in the 21st century global economy
think, and think about learning, curriculum, and development of knowledge. New
technologies are leading the way to new teaching and learning in public schools
(Christensen, Horn, & Staker, 2013; Goleman & Senge, 2014; Mahunik, 2014).
Education changed significantly over the years. Where technology is used, research
findings on learner outcomes are vague with the need to clarify technology and its
methods in education (Becker, 2001). The use of technology in the classroom changed
significantly over the past few decades with its beginning circa 1960 (Becker, 2001).
Regarding hardware, the public education system went from no computers, to one
student to computer ratio (Becker, 2001). The first computer, possibly an Apple
31
computer, was used entirely for simple functions with limited student access, restricted
capacity, and minimal use (Dawson, 2010; Staples, Pugach, Himes, 2005; Windschitl &
Sahl, 2002). The boom of the educational technology integration movement grew based
on the availability, Internet access, and more powerful computers (Chung, 2007).
Institute of Technology professor, Seymour Papert, who was among the first to see the
potential of technology in the learning environment (Boss, 2011). In the 1960s Papert
and write their own programs to understand mathematical concepts (Boss, 2011). Since
technology integration movements in the 1990s had momentum, but policies to match
this momentum needed to be put in place to sustain meaningful, relevant use (Cuban,
2004; Ferending, 2003). Over the last two decades, the use of Internet and personal
computers in the classroom became commonplace (Chung, 2007). As with any new
concepts and/or tools, the concern regarding whether the integration of technology is
superficial comes to play (Cuban, 1993). Determining effectiveness along with policies
and meaningful learning. Policies to support effective use are emerging at a slow pace
and not progressing as quickly as students need (Becker, 2001; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, &
Peck, 2001).
Currently, computers and personal digital devices are used daily in the classroom
(Dawson, 2010). The educational challenge is how to best utilize effective teaching
32
practices along with technology implementation strategies for enhanced student learning
environments (Dawson, 2010; Ertmer, 1999; Luckin et al., 2012;). Mansilla and
So long as we insist on teaching all students the same subjects in the same
way progress will be incremental. But now for the first time it is possible to
wants to know in ways that are most comfortable and most efficient. (p. 97)
This statement leads to further questions as to the subjects and skills needed for
21st century learners to succeed in the future and how teachers effectively provide
disruptive innovation as a process by which a product or service opens the door to non-
public education to disrupt the system and improve learning. This disruptive innovation
supports how with technology, a new pedagogy is needed that incorporates technology
and supports effective learning and skill development useful in the 21st century
(Christensen, 2011; Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). Before addressing effective teaching
practices in technology integration, the next section discusses middle school history and
its origins.
33
Middle School History
categorization into specific grade levels; elementary was distributed over eight years and
high school distributed into four levels (Yecke, 2005). Middle school philosophy found
its beginning in the early 1900s with the first intermediate school constructed about
schools first surfaced in the education history of the United States closer to the 1910s
(Gloer, 2007). Harvard President Charles W. Eliot (1916) believed students needed to
be prepared for college at a younger age, and he fueled the push to separate older
elementary school students into their own building. The starting of preparation for
college at a younger age combined with the population boom resulting from the end of
World War I were the catalysts to encourage administrative processes supporting older
elementary students to have their own buildings (Brookfield, 1995; Wavering, 1995).
Although the foundation of middle level education’s purpose was to improve secondary
education, the face of middle level education changed radically over time (Alexander &
Initially, middle level education was configured with some variation across the
nation; school configurations included 6-8. 7-8, and 7-9, with some schools more
recently serving 5-8 in middle school. Research studies performed to evaluate middle
school effectiveness resulted in the need to bring about changes due to curriculum not
meeting age-specific developmental needs (Pardini, 2002; Weiss & Kipnes, 2006).
34
and harboring false feelings of inability and often resulting in a lack of love for learning
(Standish, 2008; Wavering, 1995). Conversations for change were based on figuring out
how to make middle level education more developmentally appropriate and responsive
to adolescent needs (Anfara, Andrews, & Mertens, 2005; Martens, Anfara, & Caskey,
Early 1960s reform efforts led by John H. Lounsbury, considered one of the
founders of the middle school movement, led to a to change in middle level education to
support adolescent needs and eliminate the tracking of students (Standish, 2008). This
push was to change middle level education from a holding place for students growing
through adolescence to the movement of building middle schools for young people ages
included middle school, also known as junior high, started with two years leading to the
door of high school (Lounsbury, 1960; Meyer, 2011). At that time, college prep and a
holding place for adolescents was the expressed purpose (Lounsbury, 1960). In Dr.
1963 regarding the future of middle level schools, he spoke to the importance of
educating the whole child and the unique developmental needs of young adolescents.
Since then, curriculum development reform efforts led to pedagogically rich, full
experiential learning environments where experimentation became the norm for middle
level education (Drolet & Arcand, 2012). Middle school continued to evolve since the
1960s and success in academic arenas are proving middle schools are remarkable
outcomes when focused on specific evidenced-based practices (Drolet & Arcand, 2012;
35
EdSource, 2010; Meyer, 2011, Piaget, 1952, 1960). However, more education trends
Researchers from the Columbia Business School concluded the stand alone sixth
through eighth grade middle school configuration may not be the best way to educate
students (Rockoff & Lockwood, 2010). Rockoff and Lockwood (2010) found schools
with kindergarten through eighth (K-8) grade better supported student development.
This research showed how grade configuration could lead to different outcomes when
students stay on a site from kindergarten through eighth grade versus the stand-alone
middle school model (Rockoff & Lockwood, 2010). Researchers argued students in
middle school still need the elementary like nurturing environment that provides
students with a caring, loving adult (Meyer, 2011). Meyer (2011) purported when the
Reform for Young Adolescents in California Public Schools, details evidence regarding
what makes the most effective environment for middle school students. Fester’s
research provided more insight into meeting the needs of middle school students in an
stand-alone middle school. After a year of research, Fester (1987) determined effective
36
Developmentally Unique Middle School Students
level education needs to support the unique developmental needs of adolescents. This
section clarifies and explains what makes the middle school student unique.
Child development theorists describe the ages of individuals from 11-18 years
old as adolescence, a time where growth of strength, cognitive competencies, and sense
of purpose are formed; middle school focuses on the developmental needs of youths in
early adolescences aged 10-14 (Lee & Smith, 1995). Through the developmental
socially, and academically (Lee & Smith, 1993). These areas of growth for a middle
school student can surface as conflicts that resemble existential concerns (Fitzgerald,
2005). These existential concerns are why early adolescents need environments that
explain the developmental growth; they need explicit explanations of what they are
going through and how it is normal. Moreover, adolescent students need adults in their
lives consistently affirming who they are and reassuring them the developmental stage is
not who they are, but a phase in their growth. Understanding adolescent development
benefits all the people working with adolescents; it ensures developmentally appropriate
between ages 10-13 (Fitzgerald, 2005). Unpredictable, varied physical changes and
37
rapid brain growth take place during the ages of 10-12 that seem to even out between the
Growth spurts bring on skeletal and muscular system changes (Knowles &
Brown, 2000). Bones are growing faster than muscles, bringing about short-term
coordination issues (Kellough & Kellough, 2008; Raphael & Burke, 2012; Roney,
2005). Significant increases in weight, height, and sizes of internal organs occur during
adolescence (Roney, 2015). Growing pains result when muscles and tendons are not
protecting bones due to the growth spurts (Wiles, Bondi, Wiles, 2006). Youth
where synapses restructure the neural wiring in the prefrontal cortex (Casey et al., 2000;
Dahl, 2004). This is the area of the brain where decision-making, planning, reasoning,
thinking about consequences, and attention over extended periods rapidly develops
(Brown & Knowles, 2014; Nagel, 2010). The Carnegie Council on Adolescent
must master many factors (Russell, 1996). Adolescents struggle with social interactions
and are learning to master social skills and the ability to manage conflict (Caissy, 2002).
Their brain continues to develop from concrete to abstract thinking, cultivating inquiry
and problem-solving habits of mind for lifelong learning (Caskey & Ruben, 2007;
Russell, 1996). This is when skill development grows and they need to acquire technical
and analytic skills to navigate their world (Brown & Knowles, 2014; Dahl, 2004; Russel,
1996). Reasoning skills develop to help them become ethical people and learn the
38
requirements of responsible citizenship and how to respect diversity; these are essential
areas of needed guidance (Brown & Knowles, 2014; Caskey & Anfara, 2014; Caskey &
Moral development deals with an individual’s ability to make wise choices and
learn productive ways to interact with others (Modgil, Mogil, & Brown, 2013). During
adolescences, the beliefs, attitudes, and values formulated tend to stay with people
throughout their lives (Brighton, 2007). Young adolescents are in search for their
spiritual, which all relate to who they are and who they want to become (Brown &
Knowles, 2014). This constant search of their own person may lead to times of
confusion wherein they need supportive adults to help them work through their concerns
while guiding them through their own development of healthy processing and
with parents and movement toward the peer group” (p. 99). Friendships were important
students (Donnelly, 2015). Boys and girls go through puberty and experience new
sensations that if not mentored through the processes can bring about undue fear and
anxiety (Brown & Knowles, 2014; Donnelly, 2015; Raphael & Burke, 2012; Roney,
39
2005). Psychologically, changing from a concrete to more abstract thinker comes into
play (Brown & Knowles, 2014; Donnelly, 2015). This may lead to early adolescents
specific learning (National Middle School Association [NMSA], 2010). NMSA (2010)
3. Creative expression
creatively and critically by developing the qualities of connection, purpose, and mastery.
Glick (2014) further explained how brain research explained plasticity helps in the
40
develop through growth in patterns (Glick, 2014). This information helps teachers know
through development of patterns, neural networks form that assist in the development of
Velez, 2012). Additionally, to support academic learning, middle school students need
to feel safe (Glick, 2014). Brain research found emotions impact learning; therefore, if
students feel connected and safe in a learning environment they can think in more
productive ways (Glick, 2014; Velez, 2012; Wiles et al., 2006). Teachers develop
appropriate, challenging content to support success for middle school learners (Velez,
2012). This type of learning environment provides safe space to take risks in
necessary for middle schoolers to thrive (Glick, 2014; Stevenson, 2002; Thornburg,
Another factor to consider is the new generation in schools. The face of this
upcoming generation is different from ever before (Ito et al., 2008). Advancements in
2007; Ito, 2013; Velez, 2012). More and more homes own multiple televisions,
computers, and cell phones (Ito et al., 2008). Instant access to information, products,
and each other changed how people connect and create new knowledge (Ito et al., 2008).
Different forms of social media, electronic mail, videos, blogs, texts, gaming, and
electronic sources are now used to communicate with family, friends, co-workers,
communities, and others through the Internet (Buckingham, 2007; Ito, 2013). This
41
continuous access to the Internet altered society and economics (Internet World Stats,
2011). More than 68% of households use broadband Internet access service and 80% of
households have at least one Internet user either at home or elsewhere (ESA, 2011).
ESA (2011) reported over 77% of American households had at least one computer at
home, if not more digital devices, which seemed to be one of the leading causes of
The largest age groups to use technology (e.g., computers, mobile devices,
Internet) are children and teenagers (ESA, 2011). Ninety percent of children
65% of 10-13-year-olds and 75% of children between the ages of 14-18 (ESA, 2002).
Children born from 2000 through 2012 are known as post-millennial children being
raised in a truly digital society; they are the most racially and culturally diverse group in
United States history and may be the most transient due to advances in global
including this in making education relevant to students is essential for preparing them
for the future (Pacansky-Brock, 2013). Identifying best practices effective for middle
widely agreed effectiveness (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). With the rapid global trends
and use of technology, few best practices appear in research. Actual best practices were
42
organically created through the struggles and learning between the teacher and students
as they worked together to be successful in this new era of digital ubiquities (Fullan &
Langworthy, 2014).
computers, digital cameras, compact disks, held devices, probes and related technologies
to deliver and enhance the curriculum already in place” (Pitler & Bartley, 2004, p. 1).
Petty (2012) stated governmental mandates and district policies placed it in the teachers’
rampage and place parameters for effective learning, technology committees such as
ISTE worked together to develop standards and tools to guide educators. ISTE attempts
to support the effective use of technology as it rapidly evolves toward the goal of
high-quality learning, as suggested by Ahlberg, Turja, and Robinson (2003). The digital
learning environment is meaningful such that learning outcomes are connected to earlier
knowledge and corresponds to the real needs of individuals, society, and humankind
(Magana & Marzano, 2014). Learning in context needs to provide deep justifications
transformative learning experiences that surpass earlier knowledge, where expertise and
43
knowledge can be used to solve real problems by reframing them and seeing them from
different perspectives (Cennamo et al., 2014; Fullan & Donnelly, 2013; Luckin et al.,
2012; Magana & Marzano, 2014). Additionally, students need to be informed as to the
metacognitive processes that provide ways of monitoring and promoting one’s own
learning and analyses (Cennamo et al., 2014; Magana & Marzano, 2014).
support high-quality learning environments: (a) clear learning objectives and goal
setting, (b) scaffolded instruction, (c) realistic learning contexts and real-world
application, (d) multiple perspectives, (e) differentiation that addresses multiple learning
styles, (f) visual and hands-on learning experiences, (g) guided practice, (h) checks for
understanding, (i) cooperative learning, (j) think-pair-share, (k) summarization, (l) peer
tutoring, (m) student discussions, (n) student voice and choice, (o) alternative
assessment, and (p) student-centered inquiry (Alber, 2017; Cennamo et al., 2014; Fullan
communicating results” (p. 2). PBL provides student-centered learning, small group
work, authentic problems presented as questions, and new information acquired through
supports guiding self-directed learning (McDowell, 2017). Chard (1998) stated a major
advantage of PBL was that it made school more like real life, providing opportunities to
question the issue and connect with resources in the field. PBL with technology
provides a vehicle to access unlimited resources opening the world to the students (Boss,
44
2011). Integration between project-based learning and digital innovations when done
well can replace and improve ineffective instructional practices with no impact on
what learners should understand and achieve through specific activities (Killen, 2007).
Ongoing feedback can be provided through computer applications and shared documents
to guide learning (Boss, 2013). This approach can be done through an entry event that
introduces the concept, questioning or describing what learners are to understand, and
feedback, and practice helps ensure student understanding (Dessoff, 2012). Upon
discussing learning objectives, student collaboration and writing out their goals for the
student inquiry while practicing skill development and content understanding (Boss,
2013; Merrill, 2007). These processes can be delivered through a learning management
Hattie (2012) described visible teaching and learning, meaning when teachers
make clear students know what they need to do and how. Visible teaching and learning
can be attained when the learning objective is challenging yet unambiguous (Hattie,
2012). This same principle of visible teaching and learning needs to be present in the
Hattie, 2012).
45
Authenticity. Creating real-world applications is a best practice to support
student learning that is relevant and of student interest, which supports connections that
relate to the students’ world (Killen, 2007; Taylor, 2014; Tileston, 2011). Encouraging
where all students thrive (Tileston, 2011). Providing learning interactions that mirror a
real-life situation endorses authentic realistic, learning (Killen, 2007; Taylor, 2014;
Tileston, 2011).
knowledge (Merrill, 2007). Content appropriate to assist student learning along with a
often utilized is scaffolding (Rosenshine, 2012). Scaffolding provides learners with just
enough help to complete a learning activity, wherein help is gradually decreased as the
build new synapses for more information and experiences to take root, resulting in
organize learning and instruction around important ideas, provide primary sources, and
ask questions that provoke thought and student inquiry (Cañas, Reiska, Ahlberg, &
46
Multiple learning styles. Gardner (1999) provided research identifying several
distinct intelligences. According to his theory, individuals learn through different ways
intelligences and tend to carry out different tasks, solve diverse problems, and progress
consider when designing learning activities to meet student needs (Tileston, 2004).
appropriate for all learners (Tileston, 2004). These strategies comprise using visuals,
hands-on learning experiences, peer tutoring, music, oral activities, group discussions,
effective teaching strategy (Allison & Rehm, 2007). Visuals can be used in any content
area and through various sources of instructional tools (Allison & Rehm, 2007). Carrier
(2005) provided examples of visuals used to provide mental images, such as pictures,
applications. Middle school teachers can integrate visuals into any learning experience
through myriad supports and scaffolds, including concept maps, graphic organizers,
47
online web applications for brainstorming, mind maps, short answer prompts, and
student made flash cards (Allison & Rehm, 2007; Cañas et al., 2003; Carrier, 2005).
movement in the classroom, interaction with supplies and materials, and manipulation of
equipment and objects, which result in more meaningful learning (Allison & Rehm,
environment (Allison & Rehm, 2007). Other types of hands-on strategies are role-
playing, educational games, laboratory experiments, use of equipment and real objects,
and use of the body through physical activities (Allison & Rehm, 2007). Group
pedagogical approach used to meet the needs of 21st century learners, allowing
2003; Sutherland & Joubert, 2009). The idea of teaching students how to learn so their
weighty attention from educators looking to make learning more authentic (Morrison &
48
Digital learning activities that support inquiry-based, student-centered learning
include brainstorming ideas (e.g., padlet, learning management systems, Google docs),
resources to support multiple perspectives and guide next steps (e.g., TedTalks,
applications to show what was learned (e.g., Prezi, Infographic, YouTube). Accessible
technology through the Internet provides a bounty of options to support and guide
with student practice, daily review, helpful feedback, and student presentations were
more strategies that assisted student understanding (Merrill, 2007; Rosenshine, 2007).
Designing thinking activities and modeling how to think through the learning activity,
knowledge (Hattie, 2012; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001; McDowell, 2016).
practice, and checking for understanding…comes from the fact that we all
learned. We cannot simply repeat what we hear word for word. Rather, we
49
integration supports ongoing check-ins through collaborative work that can be
checking for understanding wherein teachers build in specific activities to assess student
understanding and inform necessary next steps (Fisher & Frey, 2007; Sigler & Hierbert,
1999). Retelling, summarizing, think-pair-share, whip around, and questioning are ways
(Fisher & Frey, 2007). Response cards (or white boards) where students write down
their response on a card and hold it up is another way to check for understanding (Fisher
& Frey, 2007). Personal response systems promote active learning and useful checks for
understanding (Gray & Steer, 2012). Activities to check for understanding can be
students monitoring their own learning by answering short questions, checking-off lists
with short responses, clarifying questioning in oral or written form, and providing
explanations to others that extend learning into peer work (Fisher & Frey, 2007).
formative assessments support student learning and growth through progress monitoring.
By utilizing formative assessments, teachers become identify learning needs and adjust
teaching as needed in the moment, which is also known as adaptive teaching (Finley,
50
Feedback through cooperative learning. Cooperative learning can be used as
a form of feedback. Peer tutoring, peer review, peer feedback, and group work are all
and content understanding (Marzano et al., 2001). Whether in small groups or pairs,
cooperative learning works effectively and supports all students’ access to curriculum
despite student level (Allison & Rhem, 2007; Killen, 2007; Marzano et al., 2001).
share information), jigsaws (assignments divided up and each student becomes expert to
teach it to others), and give-one-get-one where after reviewing information each student
writes down an idea and shares out their idea with others so at the end of the activity
they have several perspectives on the same information (Marzano et al., 2001). As with
any strategy teacher modeling, guided practice, peer practice, and independent practice
are action learning steps (Allison & Rehm, 2007; Killen, 2007, Marzano et al., 2001).
& Rehm, 2007; Tileston, 2004). The variety of comprehensible assessments effectively
evaluating student learning are as varied as the inputs for learning (Carrier, 2005).
Many learning activities can also be considered formative assessments (Fisher & Frey,
2007). Additionally, keeping students and families informed of progress through clear
proactive independent learners taking ownership and responsibility for their own lives,
51
which is an essential skill for middle school students (Stronge, Tucker, & Hindman,
2004).
Student voice and choice. Middle school scholars are known for their extreme
volatility due their developmental stage. Keeping this in mind, middle school classroom
learning environments that allow for exploration, curiosity, discovery, and experiential
are vehicles to provide middle school students enhanced learning to support their
positive impact on themselves and others, and strengthen personal and interpersonal
learners, and provide students the opportunity to choose how they present information
and share their voice (Cator, Schneider, & Vander Ark, 2014; Fisher & Frey, 2007).
Digital innovations surfaced in the past decade allowing for exploration, voice,
and choice in myriad ways. Visual and audio media creations are possible through
and projects can be created through gifs, memes, or posts on or student created websites
(Lenz & Kingston, 2016). The possibilities are endless, allowing for deeper learning
think about their learning and appropriate goals and objectives (Lenz & Kingston, 2016).
52
These opportunities assist students in their own learning and make them aware of their
understanding, students can critique their work to develop a plan for next steps to reach
desired growth, set new goals, and develop a plan of action in how to achieve their
goals. Goal setting supports necessary revision and empowers students to be in control
of their learning with support from the teacher (Hattie, 2012). Utilizing rubrics to align
content area goals helps in designing action plans and provides clear expectation in what
support reflection and critique include digital rubrics, survey documents to guide
students thinking, and blogs that offer student virtual spaces to reflect on their work
interest and inquiry, and high levels of engagement where all students learn and deepen
their understanding of a given concept (Cator et al., 2014). With the new age of
technology, it adds another level of support to meet student needs and provides myriad
learning environments, and flipped classrooms (Pearlman, 2006; Wetzel & Marshall,
2011). However, cautionary woes of losing focus, getting lost in technology, and
forsaking personal relationships must not happen (Ito et al., 2008; Mishra et al., 2009).
Changing teacher role. The model of education where the teacher transmits
information through lectures and textbooks is ineffective for student learning (Bellanca
& Brandt, 2010; Detwiller, 2007; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012; Velez, 2012). Additionally,
53
the role of technology in the classroom and effective use and implementation practices
centered, inquiry-based PBL takes a different approach from the traditional classroom
(Hirumi, 2002). Students learn how to work together in teams on an in-depth problem to
answer a driving question (Pearlman, 2006). Learning activities guide student learning
activities that students participate in throughout the project. The project ends with a
culminating event with an authentic audience from the community (Pearlman, 2006).
The teacher role is everchanging; however, Hattie (2012) argued teachers must
consider themselves as change agents and include five major dimensions in their
teaching to make a profound impact in students learning (Table 1). Hattie (2012)
identified these beliefs, attitudes, and practices, and claimed these factors contributed to
54
Table 1
Expert Teacher
Practice Explanation
1. Identify the most Research showed teacher subject-matter knowledge did not improve
important ways to student achievement. However, expert teachers differ in how they
represent the subjects organize and use content knowledge. They introduce new content in a
they teach way that integrates it with student prior knowledge and they adapt the
lessons to student needs. They have a greater stock of strategies to help
students and are better able to predict and respond when students make
errors. They seek evidence of who is not making progress and
problem-solve and adapt their teaching in response.
2. Create an optimal The best climate for learning is one in which there is trust. Students
classroom climate for often do not like to make mistakes because they fear a negative
learning response from peers. Expert teachers create classrooms in which errors
are welcome and learning is cool.
3. Monitor learning Expert teachers know a typical lesson never goes as planned and are
and provide feedback skilled at monitoring the status of student understanding. They seek
and use feedback about their teaching, and regularly gather
information to know who is not understanding.
4. Believe all students Expert teachers believe intelligence is changeable rather than fixed.
can reach the success This means they have a high respect for their students and show a
criteria passion that all students can succeed. Although passion may be
difficult to quantify, students are aware of whether their teachers
exhibit this passion. In one study, students overwhelmingly stated
teachers of classes with the most student achievement gains were for,
teachers with the most passion (as defined by teachers who care,
control, clarify, challenge, captivate, confer, and consolidate).
5. Influence a wide Overall, expert teachers exert positive influences on student outcomes
range of student and are not confined to improving test scores. Expert teachers
outcomes not solely influence students in a wide range of ways: encouraging students to
limited to test scores stay in school, helping to develop deep and conceptual understandings,
teaching them to develop multiple learning strategies, encouraging
them to take risks, helping them develop respect for selves and others,
and helping develop active citizens.
Note. Source: Hattie (2012).
However, even with the use of student-centered, inquiry driven PBL and expert
teacher practices, digital innovations are an ever-present resource best utilized to engage,
enhance, and support 21st century skill development (James, 2009). James (2009)
studied what influences the development of technology integration among middle school
55
stating beliefs were an important factor to self-efficacy; belief in one’s capability to
perform a specific task was the best predictor of motivation and behavior regarding
capable with technology still leaves questions regarding what are the best strategies,
tools, and practices for technology integration at the middle school level to support
from that, five groups emerged: dynamic users, technology integrating users,
knowledgeable intermittent users, limited approach users, and non-users. The teachers
in the dynamic and technology integrating groups described their use of technology in
rich details. The dynamic and technology integrating users overcame barriers with their
environments and used technology regularly in their teaching. They believed using
technology in the classroom benefited student-learning and fit well with curriculum and
teaching practices. With such a belief, effective technology integration is successful for
literacy and application standards for both students and teachers emerged (Mayor,
2015). The National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) and
respectively as the ISTE Standards for Students (ISTE Standards•S, 2016) and ISTE
Standards for Teachers (ISTE Standards•T, 2017), were designed to establish a high
56
level of technology proficiency. ISTE is a collaborative team committed to providing
leadership for innovation to improve teaching, learning, and advancing the effective use
of technology in K-12 and teacher education (Williamson & Redish, 2009). ISTE
developed the standards as a systematic support for effective technology use in the
classroom, and recently revised the standards (ISTE, 2016). The standards include
performance indicators that define specific, measurable outcomes that evaluate teacher
competency in a given area and can be used as a guide to set teacher goals (Morphew,
2012). ISTE is at the forefront of identifying the necessary skills, essential conditions,
ISTE (2016), best practices for integrating technology into education focus on student
learning that includes: (1) learner empowerment; (2) responsible digital citizenship; (3)
Standards help guide technology integration in classrooms but used alone does not make
standards, models of use or frameworks for technology integration are used to assess
standards can minimize the technology and its use to a linear path when learning and
technology is a complex, multifaceted process (Mishra & Koehler, 2008). The TPACK
57
framework presents an innovative way of thinking about preparing and supporting
teachers to use technology and package content aligned with the ISTE-T performance
standards (ISTE, 2017). TPACK encompasses the understanding that arises from
multiple interactions with content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge (Figure 2).
planning lessons that integrate technology. The framework requires equal attention to
technology, pedagogy, and content in designing curriculum (Mishra & Koehler, 2008).
researching technology integration in education (Mishra et al., 2009; Wetzel & Marshall,
2011). Scholars debated that knowledge about technology cannot be isolated from its
58
context or use and one of the requirements of good teaching is understanding how
textbooks and whiteboards, as well as advanced technologies such as the Internet, digital
devices, and web applications (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Additional understanding of
digital technologies, operating systems, and computer hardware and software provide
teachers a broad knowledge to apply them productively and recognize how technology
can help or obstruct accomplishing a given learning objective. The “CK” in TPACK
refers to content knowledge (CK), which is the subject matter knowledge to be learned
by students. CK consists of knowing the subject taught, including basic facts, central
ideas, concepts, theories, and how to connect those through specific curriculum. The
about the processes of learning and how it serves to meet educational purposes, goals,
and objectives for learning. This generalized knowledge embodies all concerns of
learning objectives, strategies, and techniques to support learning and assessing student
framework. The researchers observed and interviewed the teacher and discovered
knowledge was clearly addressed through learning objectives the teacher listed on the
whiteboard and clarified with each lesson. The content and pedagogical knowledge
59
interplay was the teacher’s use of the writing process to guide student understanding of
the Renaissance. Three language arts activities (writing a poem, summarizing articles,
and a writers’ workshop) were used as learning activities to address content objectives in
language arts and the Renaissances. Peer edits, review and feedback, group work,
teacher modeling, discussing the processes of the learning activities provided additional
pedagogy process used by the teacher was PBL supported by a learning environment
that was student-centered and inquiry driven (Wetzel & Marshall, 2012).
effective classroom management (Wetzel & Marshall, 2012). Students were encouraged
to teach each other the computer applications and were considered the experts in the
expectations and procedures were evident as the students entered the room; they had
laptops on their desks, looked at the board for an assignment, and knew to close their
laptops upon direction. The interweaving of pedagogy, content, and technology were
evidenced through the learning activities and culminating project presentations (Wetzel
model (SAMR; Juliani, Corrente, & Dell'Acqua, 2011). SAMR is designed to help
educators infuse technology into teaching and learning (Juliani et al., 2011). The model
creatively infuse digital learning experiences in effective ways (Richardt, Church, &
60
Morrison, 2011). The teacher goal is to construct a SAMR ladder and identify where
learning activities align. This structure provides adjustment of task to support deeper
learning environments with cognitively complex tasks developing critical thinking skills
Puentedura (2012) developed the SAMR model in the late 1980s to assist with
address what types of technology are best for optimal student learning. The name was
based on student results; for example, the “S” stands for substitution, wherein
word processer used in the place of a typewriter. The level of use is the substitution
2012).
substitution with enhancements (Puentedura, 2012). Using the word processer example,
adding spell check or cut/paste are forms of augmentation. Usefulness of the technology
tool are important, however minimally change student performance. Modification is the
next level in the SAMR model, where the task is significantly redesigned by the
group analysis, peer feedback, editing, and revising, all resulting in enhanced student
performance and deeper learning. Deeper learning in cognitively complex tasks is the
result of what Puentedura (2012) called the redefinition level in the SAMR model. The
61
to dive deeper and grow as they express knowledge through multiple outlets. The
and use to question and anticipate what level of student learning would result with the
Chris Moersch (1995) was designed as a research tool to assess authentic classroom
technology use. However, over many iterations, the original framework evolved to
has seven implementation levels, each designed to analyze whether the curriculum is
range from zero (nonuse level) to level 6 (refinements level). As a teacher progresses
from one level to the next, it supports a series of transformations from teacher-centered
The ISTE standards, TPACK model, SAMR model, and LoTi framework
provide foundational understandings; some of the models starting to emerge over the last
Using a common language and learning from each other can guide continued
62
multipurpose and help support effective application of technology across various
umbrella term with a large variance of meanings and ways to look at technology
integration (Edutopia, 2007; Fullan & Langworthy, 2013). Hertz (2011) described
classroom using a variety of tools to complete assignments and create projects that show
a deep understanding of content” (p. 2). Hertz (2011) defined levels of technology
integration (Table 2), contending this was a starting point to understand the levels of
Table 2
Level of
Technology
Integration Descriptors of Level
Sparse Technology is rarely used or available. Students rarely use
technology to complete assignments or projects.
Basic Technology is used or available occasionally, often in a lab
rather than the classroom. Students are comfortable with one
or two tools and sometimes use these tools to create projects
that show understanding of content.
Comfortable Technology is used in the classroom on a regular basis.
Students are comfortable with a variety of tools and often use
these tools to create projects that show understanding of
content.
Seamless Students employ technology daily in the classroom using a
variety of tools to complete assignments and create projects
that show a deep understanding of content.
Note. Taken from Hertz (2011, p. 2).
63
Technology Integration Best Practices in in Middle School
schools where learning can happen in different ways than ever before (Heick, 2014).
With this demand, understanding and integrating effective use of technology to support
As of 2009, Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project discovered
that 93% of American teens aged 12-17 went online (Lenhart et al., 2010). Engagement
in learning is essential for knowledge acquisition and understanding (Casey et al., 2000;
Cennamo et al., 2014; Magana & Marzano, 2015). This lends to the logic of why using
technology integration applications such as social media, web application, and resources
from the Internet engage student learning supports connections to student lives resulting
in deeper learning, retention, and application of knowledge (Harris et al., 2009; Lenhart
et al., 2010).
Technology integration best practices identified in the beginning of this chapter work
well with middle school students. The next few sections address in more detail specific
areas of technology application effective with middle school classes when integrated
best practices and effective pedagogical methods can provide optimal technology
64
example of this is the use of social media in the classroom. Social media in the learning
environment when used effectively can allow for an authentic audiences and resources
for students to connect with while solving real-world problems (Anderson, 2012; Baker,
2014). Examples include students connecting via the Internet/ with artists, architects,
leaders, business owners, and other experts in the field. Experts can provide mentoring,
information, and research (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Heick, 2014). The possibilities are
abundant for using social media and provide middle school student the cooperative
social environment in which they thrive (Baker, 2014; Heick, 2014; Holland, 2014).
Twitter chats (Baker, 2014). Twitter chats allow students to connect, collaborate, share,
and learn. One Twitter chat known for middle school use is Kidsdchatnz. In
Kidsdchatnz students from New Zealand are provided a chat topic, teachers flip the
classroom by providing the materials students are to read or research about before
responding to the chat, and a weeklong session on the topic ensues. Weekly chat topics
are provided throughout the year and student expectations are clearly defined resulting
systems use to support online learning (Wang & Hsu, 2008). Wang and Hsu (2008)
65
and blogs. Middle school students use email, instant messaging, video conferencing,
blogs, and videos. An example of a webinar for middle school students is Backchannel
social interactions throughout the school day, establishing learning objectives, and
Blogging is an application that can be used for feedback, reflection, critique, and
with a real-world application and authentic audience (Fryer, 2009; Lopez, 2010).
Middle school students enjoy learning about themselves, telling others about themselves,
and learning about others in their school (Lopez, 2010). Blogging provides an avenue
for them to share what they know on a given topic guided by exemplary digital
and give helpful peer feedback, and learn from one another (Fryer, 2009). Students can
learn how words affect others, how to share ideas respectfully, and the importance of
their ideas and recognition of their digital footprint (Fryer, 2009). Blogging can include
Podcasts are known as the auditory processing learners dream application (Gloer,
2007). Auditory learners benefit from this technology tool, and student learning is
enhanced when they can learn by listening and creating their own podcasts. The
66
made available on the Internet for downloading to a computer or portable media player
that can be distributed and listened to at the listener’s convenience (Van Orden, 2014).
Podcasting offers a variety of content for listeners to consume how they want, when they
want, and where they want (Van Orden, 2014). This is one of the many examples of
students combined with effective teaching practices. Darrow (2012) defined blended
where students had some control over their learning and the teacher seamlessly
incorporated the use of online learning tools (e.g., discussion boards, online
needs and help them be more engaged in school when used effectively. A study asked
4,000 middle school students what they needed to be engaged and successful
academically in school (Spires et al., 2008). The students reported using computers
more in school and home, and developing high levels of computer skills could help. The
study supported middle school student interest but did not detail what effective practice
would look like in the middle school classroom (Spires et al., 2008).
Petty (2012) stated technology integration can be categorized into three main
strands: interactive, learning experiences and assessment, and research and problem-
solving. Petty (2012) found interactive applications provide learning activities that
67
accommodate middle school needs, providing physical activity, creative expression,
positive social interactions with adults and peers, frequent transitions, and social
encouraging active participation where students set, monitor, and manage their learning
to meet their goals empowers adolescents to take ownership of their learning and
progress (Petty, 2012). Educators today have the power to change the world in the way
they respond, implement, and integrate emerging technology. However, with the use of
is still being defined and although there are many resources, how to best utilize these
resources for effective technology integration in middle school still goes unanswered
Over the past decade, with the massive penetration of technology into
technology integration, which range from attitudes, beliefs, and institutional structures to
limited resources, funding, skills, time, technical support, and knowledge (Boss, 2008;
Ertmer, 1999; Hew & Brush, 2007). According to Kopcha (2012), barriers to
68
integrating technology fall into five areas: (a) access, (b) vision, (c) beliefs, (d) time, and
Access
Given the mandate that students need to be better prepared for the 21st century,
technology at a school site and in the classroom, teachers need to feel capable and have
the resources to create and sustain effective learning environments where students are
engaged and learning at deeper levels (Adedokum, 2016). One specific area of support
& Chung, 2015). Successful technology integration requires the full support from
school principals and district administrators (SETDA, 2015). SETDA and ISTE both
(ISTE, 2016; SETDA, 2015). Leadership needs a clear vision and transparent mandates
that all teachers will use technology (Adedokum, 2016; ISTE, 2016, SETDA, 2015).
the growing digital divide and developed the Leading Education by Advancing Digital
Commission (LEAD, 2012). LEAD (2012) created a five-point blueprint for technology
integration. The first goal is to solve the infrastructure challenge by upgrading school
provide reduced rates and powerful connectivity to enable schools and students to have
devices into the hands of all students by 2020. The hope is to make devices affordable
through aggressive programming with manufacturers and school districts. The third
69
goal is to accelerate the adoption of the digital classroom. However, despite this effort,
despite the legislature addressing the need to support digital classrooms. Work is still
needed in the following areas: working with state and district purchasing for more
bring in new effective products. LEAD Commission’s fourth goal is to embrace and
digital learning implementations and to help others learn from and finds ways to support
model schools continued growth. The fifth goal is to invest in human capital. LEAD is
looking for ways to help build teacher capacity and professional development through
the creation of master teachers who can help train other teachers in best practices
(LEAD, 2012).
In addition, LEAD (2012) set forth to address and reverse the growing inequities
regarding digital learning access between high- and low-income students and school
districts. Many digital tools are widely used in the classroom, but teachers worry about
digital divides when it comes to student access to technology between high- and low-
income students (Purcell et al., 2013). Teachers are concerned and face many obstacles
when teaching low-income students when they bring technology into the classroom to
because of a gap regarding who has access and who does not. More needs to be done to
reverse the achievement gap and provide access to students so they can succeed in
70
Vision
purposes (Kopcha, 2012). Teachers face many barriers with technology integration in
their classrooms (Ertmer, 1999). One area that creates a barrier for effective technology
integration is lack of vision for technology and its use (D. Hayes, 2007). D. Hayes
(2007) discovered when teachers were asked whether technology had an impact on
classroom practices, many had difficulty identifying any impact (D. Hayes, 2007). D.
Hayes (2007) found these teachers were only substituting existing practices with new
technologies and not redefining its use for deeper learning because of the teachers lack
of changing their view about technology use. Once teachers changed their views about
technology through the support of a mentor or colleagues while building their capacity,
that were more child-centered, engaging, and provide deeper learning environments for
Beliefs
their beliefs, motivations, and practices. Dynamic and technology integrating users
overcame barriers and used technology in their teaching regularly. They believed using
technology benefited student learning (James, 2009). However, teachers with a limited
approach created a barrier in their own use based on their perceptions (Kim, Kim, Lee,
Spector, & DeMeester, 2013). Time and training are needed to support continued
71
Time
Research found teachers with strong vision, capable, well-educated, and skilled
with technology still did not integrate technology effectively as a learning tool due to
limited time on task and planning (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Students with insufficient
time to work on computers became a repeated pattern when asked why computers were
not used regularly in the classroom. Additionally, time to plan became another barrier
for why teachers did not become effective integrators of technology (Bauer & Kenton,
2005). Lastly, when teachers were not effective with technology integration, they found
student misbehavior rose and time on task was not the focus of teacher attention, but
Professional Development
however, despite the barriers, common themes were evident throughout education
integration was available professional learning (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Research
found technology hardware and tools were made available to teachers and classrooms at
an abundant rate, but effective training to support its use could not keep up with the
incorporated one fad or another only to be replaced by something new, and technology
integration was one more example of this trend. Cuban et al. (2001) defined technology
72
ongoing professional development (Edutopia, 2007; Hew & Brush, 2007). Early
instruction was used to support drill and practice activities was inconsistent in
resulting in a change of teaching practice, but the impact on student achievement was
mixed (Figg & Jaipal, 2012; Wenglinsky, 2005). Incorporating frameworks and
to develop best practices for successful and engaging learning environments (Edutopia,
Summary
environments to meet their needs (AMLE, 2010). Participatory and engaging learning
environments support deeper learning while developing 21st century skills (P21, 2008).
of work, being more focused and on-task, achieving higher grade averages in reading
and writing, and accessing curriculum to help their understanding (Godfrey, 2013).
From the research, it was evident many resources exist for technology use, yet further
research is needed to define best practices for effective technology integration in middle
school (D. Hayes, 2007; Glick, 2014; Kopcha, 2012). Technology used appropriately
and effectively can meet the needs of middle school students (Boss, 2011).
This chapter presented a review of the literature. The next chapter outlines the
methodology used for this study, including data collection and analysis procedures.
73
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the methodology used to conduct this study, which
examines best practices utilized by expert middle school teachers. The chapter begins
with a review of the purpose statement, research questions, and research design. The
chapter then provides an extensive overview of the justification for the research design,
data analysis. The final section covers methodological assumptions, limitations of the
study, and the ethical procedures engaged to safeguard the protection of human subjects.
The chapter concludes with a summary of the overall methodology of this study.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to identify
perceived by expert middle school teachers. Additionally, it was the purpose of the
study to determine the most important best practices and perceived barriers to successful
Research Questions
74
Research Design
A mixed method sequential explanatory research design was used to identify and
method sequential explanatory research designs use a two-step design whereby the data
further explain, elaborate, or clarify the quantitative results (Creswell, 2014). This
explain the phenomena being studied, then uses the qualitative data to refine and explain
wherein both forms of data are integrated in the design through merging, connecting, or
embedding the data to fully explain the phenomenon (Creswell, 2014; McMillan &
Schumacher, 2010). This design “captures the best of both quantitative and qualitative
data- to obtain quantitative results from a population in the first phase, and then refine or
elaborate these findings through an in-depth qualitative exploration in the second phase”
(Creswell, 2002, p. 567). This design was selected because it was the most appropriate
approach for addressing the purpose of the study and answering the research questions.
This mixed methods sequential explanatory research design combines the quantitative
component that explains the what with the qualitative component explaining in further
detail the why (Creswell, 2014; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Figure 3 depicts a
75
Quantitative Research
Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2009) defined quantitative research as the type of
educational research that involves the collection and analysis of numerical data to
designs, and database analysis (Gay et al., 2009; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Patten,
2012). The numerical data are statistically analyzed, providing sufficient information to
address the research questions. The focus of the data analysis was to identify best
their classrooms. McMillan and Schumacher (2010) stated, “Surveys are used to
desires, ideas and other types of information” (p. 235). Descriptive research is obtained
situation and is a part of quantitative study (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Patton,
2002). This descriptive research used subject and survey questionnaires to describe best
for the study because the goal was to describe, explain, and identify the practices of
Qualitative Research
of narrative and visual data such as case study research, in-depth interviews, or focus
groups (Gay et al., 2009; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Patten, 2012). Creswell
(2014) described qualitative research as, “Research in which the researcher relies on the
76
views of participants; describes and analyzes these words for themes; and conducts the
inquiry in a subjective, biased manner” (p. 46). In qualitative research, the information
obtained is more general in nature. Respondents are asked open-ended questions for the
researcher to gather words, phrases, stories, and descriptions based in a natural setting
(Creswell, 2014; Gay et al., 2009; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Patten, 2012).
Krathwohl (2009) posited qualitative findings provided the human side of research,
Population
want to understand pertinent to the research questions (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010;
group of individuals where the findings of the research could be generalized (Gay et al.,
2009). The population utilized for this study was California middle school teachers and
the target population was middle school teachers considered experts at technology
integration in the middle school classroom. Table 3 shows the student enrollment and
77
Table 3
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2016), there are
10,458 public schools in California. Of those, 1,347 are middle schools. California’s
large population of middle schools and geography with lengthy distance across the state
a method that relies on data collection from population members conveniently available
to the researcher (Patten, 2012). The accessible population for the focus of this study
was middle schools in the counties of Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, and
Solano. Contra Costa has six middle schools, Marin County has six middle schools,
Napa has six middle schools, Sacramento has 13 schools and Solano County has 12
middle schools for a total of 43 middle schools in these counties (Table 4).
78
Table 4
These 43 middle schools were the prospective target population the researcher
wished to generalize the data collection. In this study, the researcher sought to identify
and describe the practices of middle school teachers effective at integrating technology.
Sample
representing the whole. The study sample referred to the subgroup of the target
population from whom the researcher planned to collect data, also known as participants
(Krathwohl, 2009; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Creswell (2014) stated “The target
population or ‘sampling frame’ is the actual list of sampling units from which the
The researcher used purposive criterion sampling for this study. “Purposive
sampling involves the selection of a small number of cases from a larger population”
(McMillan & Schumacher, 2010, p. 399). The sample for this study was expert middle
79
• Taught sixth, seventh, or eighth grade in a public school located in California
within the specified counties (Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, and
Solano)
superintendent
2012). As the study focused on best practices of expert middle school teachers, it was
necessary to narrow the sample to specific middle school teachers currently integrating
technology in their classroom and located geographically near the researcher. Figure 4
shows the narrowing from the population to the sample. The researcher contacted the
website as residing within the specified counties. The superintendent was contacted for
permission to conduct the study and for names of teachers who met the study criteria.
The superintendent either contacted the teachers themselves or allowed the researcher to
contact the site principal to recruit teachers to participate in the study. Once teachers
confirmed their willingness to participate, a link to the electronic survey was sent to
80
Figure 4. Graphic representation of narrowing from population to sample.
Instrumentation
quantitative data (Creswell, 2014). For this study, both quantitative and qualitative
instruments were used to collect data. When combined, the strengths of both methods
“provides for a more comprehensive picture of what is being studied” (McMillan &
Schumacher, 2010, p. 396). Quantitative data were gathered by an online survey and
Quantitative Instrumentation
are used to, “describe and explain the patterns related to the phenomena…to examine
new or little-understood phenomena” (p. 324). One tool to obtain descriptive data for
The researcher used surveys acquired from published dissertations to gather quantitative
data. Using existing instruments built off the established validity of scores obtained
81
from past use of the instrument (Creswell, 2014). Creswell (2012) supported the
provided validity of information. For this reason, the Best Practice Implementation of
Middle School Technology survey (Appendix B) was created using ideas from published
surveys. Because no one survey was sufficient to collect the needed data to answer the
research questions, it was necessary to use ideas from multiple sources wherein the
researcher created an original survey to meet the needs of this study. The three
Education Student Standards (ISTE, 2016), the Survey of Middle School Teachers at
Research Site (Petty, 2012), and questions in relation to barriers of technology education
excerpted from the Teachers Integration Survey (Adedokum, 2016). Permission to use
ideas from these instruments was secured prior to using them for data collection
(Appendix E).
Qualitative Instrumentation
meaningful, knowable, and able to be made explicit (Patton, 2002). The purpose of this
study was to gather data from various individuals regarding their best practices that
this purpose, interviews were used as the supplementary method of data collection.
Interviews followed the online survey, allowing the researcher to gain a deeper
understanding.
82
The purpose of the interviews was to obtain information on current practices and
strategies used in technology integrated classrooms. Meeting face-to-face was the first
option requested, but when that was not feasible interviews were conducted through
web-conferencing or telephone. Participants did not have to answer any questions they
do not wish to answer. The researcher was as unobtrusive as possible taking notes on a
laptop or writing in a research journal. Participants were contacted within a few weeks
of the interview if any clarification was needed regarding the information gathered.
Validity
represent the actual phenomenon (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Patten, 2012).
Expert panels are often used when specialized input and opinion is required to assess the
this study, an expert panel was utilized to support the validity of the data collection
instruments, as well as ascertain the usefulness and meaning of data collected. This
expert panel consisted of leaders in the field of educational technology known for their
The researcher developed the survey instrument (Appendix B) to align with the
stated purpose and research questions. A large portion of the survey was generated with
permission from Dr. Donna Petty using the survey from her 2012 dissertation, which
also explored best practices in technology integration. For purposes of integrity and
validity, each survey item was cross referenced to the applicable ISTE standard and
represented in the literature. A panel of experts was utilized to review and confirm the
instruments’ content validity. The expert panel consisted of three individuals who each
83
(a) had experience as district superintendents; (b) provided technology expertise as
and/or leadership in ACSA Technology Leadership Committee; and (d) were recognized
for their technology leadership. The panel of experts was given the link to the survey to
review and validate the content and provide feedback. Each expert provided meaningful
feedback which the researcher utilized to revise the survey instrument prior to
administration.
research is to establish whether one can draw meaningful and useful inferences from
scores on the instrument used. Creswell (2014) explained three traditional forms of
validity in quantitative research: (a) content validity (do the items measure the content
they intended to measure); (b) predictive or concurrent validity (do scores predict a
criterion measure, do results correlate with other results); and (c) construct validity (do
excerpts from instruments used in published dissertations, content and construct validity
validity “refers to the degree of congruence between the explanations of the phenomena
and the realities of the world” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010, p. 330). Validity
concepts and phenomena under study (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Patton, 2002).
To provide for content validity, the interview questions were developed based on an
84
extensive review of literature and with assistance from an expert panel; additionally,
ideas from existing survey questions and published dissertations guided development.
testing, and revision of initial questions of final phraseology” (p. 357). These techniques
also establish the reliability of qualitative data. To enhance validity and reliability, the
following strategies were employed: (1) interview protocol and script were developed
based on best practices and aligned to ISTE Standards, (2) the protocol was reviewed by
an expert panel, (3) the instrument was field tested to ensure a common understanding
and clarify participant language, (4) responses were digitally recorded and transcribed,
and (5) participants reviewed transcripts for accuracy. The participant language was
used to design clear and concrete interview questions in familiar language to the
used during participant interviews to ensure a verbatim collection of their words rather
than relying on the researcher’s written account and memory. Finally, participants were
provided the opportunity to review the transcription of their interview to verify their
Reliability
Reliability refers to the ability of the instrument tool to produce consistent outcomes
(Patten, 2012). The reliability for this study was determined through an instrument field
85
test. McMillan and Schumacher (2010) stated test-retest reliability could be achieved by
administering the test to the same individuals twice over a period of time. Participants
from a pre-identified site not participating in the study were asked to take the survey and
participate in the interview process to determine if the results were effective. These
selected educators were asked to field-test the survey and interview questions. A field
test increases reliability in this study by safeguarding the neutrality of the researcher and
ensuring questions accurately align to the research questions and provide an opportunity
for revisions to the survey questions and interview process prior to actual data collection
(Creswell, 2014; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Field test participants were asked to
review the survey questions (Appendix B), interview protocol (Appendix D), and the
interview questions (Appendix D), and provided feedback on the following areas:
length of questions and interview; and the recording process. Revisions were made
based on feedback from the field test participants and dissertation chair.
Data Collection
For quantitative data collection, an online survey was developed with excerpts
collected via survey. Teacher names and contact information were compiled and a
request to participate in the study was sent via email. Letters and contact information of
86
Upon district approval, a letter was sent to the principal or site administrator requesting
participation in the research. Once approved, emails and letter inviting selected teachers
considered experts in technology integration were invited to complete the survey. Each
respondent to the electronic survey (Appendix B) first received a landing page with
participants needed check a box indicating they read the informed consent form and
understood their participation was voluntary. Teacher participants were assured all
information was confidential and no identifying data were shared in any way. After
signing the informed consent form, a link to the online survey was delivered to
participants.
a follow-up interview. Those who volunteered were contacted via email and an
depending on location, time, and availability of the participant and researcher. All
participants were asked permission to record interviews. The researcher recorded the
process and took observational notes using a journal. Interviews with teachers were
transcribed and the transcriptions were forwarded to participants for their review.
Ethical Considerations
was obtained prior to conducting the study. Approval required understanding of ethical
standards in dealing with human subjects, including respect for others, benevolence, and
fairness. All participants were provided adequate time to review the informed consent
87
form (Appendix C) and consider all options. The researcher thoroughly explained the
study purpose, procedures, potential benefits and risks, and the voluntary nature of their
all identifiable information was protected. Participants had the right to withdraw from
the study without penalty or refuse to answer any questions at any time without
involving human subjects to submit research protocols to the BUIRB for review and
approval prior to commencing the project. The necessary documentation was submitted
to BUIRB and the study was approved to move forward. After BUIRB approval, data
collection commenced.
Data Analysis
emerging themes of consensus and disagreement relevant to the research questions. The
data produced from the survey described participant ratings about technology
integration. McMillan and Schumacher (2010) proposed using a survey for research
provided clarity on the participants viewpoint. The quantitative data produced from the
Qualitative data were analyzed using a spreadsheet, creating themes and color coding.
88
Quantitative Data Analysis
were used to, “describe and explain the patterns related to the phenomena” and “to
examine new or little-understood phenomena” (p. 324). Likert scale data were gathered
and used to assess the frequency of usage and specific practices used by participants.
Data were categorized to refine questions and used to provide a framework for further
identify and narrow the best practices most used by technology integration experts in
middle school classrooms. For survey questions 4 to 12, participants were asked to
identify which practices and technology applications they used. Similarly, questions 13
importance) what they perceived as most important for successful middle school
section and rate them on the scale of 1-5 on questions 13 to 20. The number of
respondents marking each rating was tallied and a mean score was calculated. The items
provide more detail and explanation about their technology integrated leaning activities.
D). Interview recordings were obtained, transcribed, and coded where patterns and
identifying themes were noted. Coding allowed the researcher to find similarities
89
among transcribed data developing categorical information sections (McMillian &
Schumacher, 2010). Data categories assisted the researcher in addressing the research
questions.
The researcher, with the assistance of Excel and Google Docs coded the data.
The transcribed data from the survey instrument was uploaded to Excel software using
Limitations
Limitations are elements that could adversely affect a study and limit the
limitation was the use of purposeful convenience sampling, which was not random, so
the data may not generalize to others outside of this study. Also, a small sample of
experts in middle school technology integration were surveyed and interviewed. The
sample size was limited and may affect generalizability. Another limitation was
whether participants responded in a truthful and accurate manner during data collection.
A fourth limitation was the use of excerpts of survey instruments from publish
dissertations, which could limit the scope of information provided from participants.
Furthermore, the study was conducted with middle school teachers in northern
California and, therefore, the findings may not be able to be generalized to other
geographical areas either nationally or globally. Finally, a limitation of the study was
the researcher acted as the instrument of inquiry for the interviews, which could
90
Summary
Chapter III detailed the methodology used in this study, reviewed the research
questions, and presented study processes. The purpose of this study was to gather ideas
survey and qualitative data were collected via interviews. Descriptive statistics were
used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed for trends in
the degree of technology integration used. Chapter IV describes the findings and how
the information can be used for deeper learning. It also discusses the barriers of
teacher experts.
91
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION, AND FINDINGS
Technology in the classroom changed rapidly over the last decade. These
conjunction with the use of technology to ensure the greatest impact on deeper learning
environments (Fullan & Donnelly, 2013). The question was not whether to use
outcomes (Javeri & Persichitte, 2007). In studies to identify technology and its
integration with minimal data that identified and described teacher best practices or
experiences in middle school classrooms (Adcock, 2008). Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to identify and describe best practices in and barriers to technology
sample, and methodology. It includes a review and an analysis of the data describing
questions are presented in table format to describe survey responses. Interview data are
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to identify
perceived by expert middle school teachers. Additionally, it was the purpose of the
92
study to determine the most important best practices and perceived barriers to successful
Research Questions
Methodology
school teachers in five northern California schools who were identified by their
criteria outlined in Chapter III. Thirty-four teachers responded to the survey and some
participants, two did not answer most of the questions despite clicking through the entire
survey resulting in an n of 32 for most items. Likert scale data were gathered from the
initial survey instrument and used to assess the frequency of usage and specific practices
categorized the data to identify common themes using Excel, followed by reporting
Based on the survey participants response when asked if they were willing to be
93
contacted to complete interviews. Seven teachers participated in interviews; some were
though they expressed willingness. Three of the interviews were completed face-to-
face, three were completed over the phone, and one was completed virtually. Interviews
were transcribed and forwarded to participants for review, corrections, and confirmation
transcripts were coded using NVivo and analyzed for themes, possible trends, and
commonalities.
The sample for this study of expert middle school teachers met the following
criteria:
• Taught 6th, 7th or 8th grade in a public school located in California within
superintendent
This section describes the data gathered from the survey instrument and
corresponding interview questions. Data are presented as they align to the research
questions. This section details both quantitative and qualitative data that highlight
noticeable themes.
94
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked: What are the best practices in technology integration
this question, the survey asked how often participants used technology for instructional
purposes and how often their students used technology. Of the 34 participants who
completed the survey, 84.4% reported using technology for instructional purposes daily
in their class. Surprisingly, three respondents used technology for instructional purposes
at least once a week. In terms of students, 14 (45.2%) participants stated they had their
students use technology in an instructional setting daily whereas other participants had
their students use technology every other day or less (Table 5).
Table 5
Teacher Student
n % n %
Daily in each class 27 84.4 14 45.2
Every other class 1 3.3 5 16.1
Three times a week 1 3.3 5 16.1
At least two times a week 0 0 3 16.1
At least once a week 3 9.4 6 19.4
Digital citizenship. Participants were also asked to describe best practices they
deemed effective for developing student skill pertaining to digital citizenship. Twenty-
five of 34 participants (78.1%) stated they provided equitable access to technology for
all their students. Additionally, 71% of the expert teachers discussed and modeled the
importance of internet safety with students and 21 (62%) identified all five areas as a
95
Table 6
n %
Provide equitable access to technology for all students 25 78.1
Discuss and model the importance of internet safety 23 71.8
Model and teach the safe, legal, and ethical use of digital 22 68.8
information and technology
Model and expect students to use appropriate documentation of 21 65.6
sources on projects
Discuss and model the importance of copyright and ethical use 21 65.6
of digital information with students
With over 50% of respondents identifying modeling appropriate digital use and
providing equitable access to technology clearly signified a high level of importance for
middle school technology implementation. This was evident from interviews as well.
three Common Sense Media lessons from the topics internet safety, digital
footprint and reputation, and creative credit and copyright. These are done
Use of digital tools and resources. Participants were asked to describe their use
of digital tools and resources. Twenty-five participants (78.1%) reported they used
presentation software) and websites for both personal and instructional use.
productivity software and websites. Interestingly, over half (68%) used staff and student
96
shared folders and/or a learning management system (LMS) to share teacher designed
Table 7
n %
Email, productivity software, and websites for 25 78.1%
personal/instruction use
Self-designed learning activities for students that use 23 71.9%
productivity software and websites
Staff and student shared folders and/or LMS for 22 68.8%
information sharing and/or collaboration.
Integrate digital tools and resources for communication, 21 65.6%
production, collaboration, and instruction
Digital tools for collaboration with colleagues and/or 21 65.6%
students
school teachers used digital tools and resources, interview questions asked for further
integrating the use of digital tools and resources for communication, production,
Echo is our content management system and LMS… All assignments are
provided on the LMS where students access course content, including daily
we can exchange information… I can put every link that I need on our
statement best described their use of interactive technology. Responses showed 59.4%
of participants used and created lessons and assessments that engage students through
97
interactive technologies that advanced student learning and creativity (e.g., interactive
boards, wireless devices, individual response systems). Instead of creating their own
lessons and assessments, 21.9% used existing lessons and assessments that engaged
Table 8
%
Use and create lessons and assessments that engage students through interactive 59.4
technologies that advance student learning and creativity
Use lessons and assessments that engage students through interactive technologies 21.9
Use lessons that engage students primarily through interactive technologies 6.3
Use interactive technology primarily for presentation and working toward 12.5
interactive use with students
Use interactive technology primarily for presentation. 0.0
asked to describe best practices that supported effective learning experiences and
assessed the digital learning environment that enabled students to pursue their individual
curiosity. In contrast, 25.8% used digital tools to address diverse learning styles and
98
Table 9
%
Provide a digital learning environment where students are active participants in 9.7
setting educational goals, managing learning, and assessing progress
Provide a digital learning environment enabling students to pursue individual 32.3
curiosity
Provide customized and personalized learning experiences based on achievement 19.4
data
Provide digital tools to address diverse learning styles 25.8
Provide learning experiences that incorporate the use of various digital tools 12.9
select the response that best described how they instructed students to use technology for
search for and evaluate information through electronic resources and other appropriate
technologies exploring real world issues and authentic problems. Approximately 16.1%
electronically and give credit by citing sources and another 16.1% assigned questions
10).
99
Table 10
Student Use of Technology for Research and Problem-Solving (ISTE Standards 3,4)
%
Projects require students to search for and evaluate information through electronic 51.6
resources and other technologies exploring real world issues and authentic
problems.
Projects require students to locate information electronically and give credit by 16.1
citing sources
Students receive questions that require a search of student-selected electronic 9.7
resources and other appropriate technologies with limited assistance.
Students receive questions that require a search of teacher-selected electronic 16.1
resources
Students are told about electronic resources that relate to topics they are studying 6.5
technology applications they used with their students. Nearly all (90.6%) had students
use the Internet for research. Additionally, 75% or more of expert teachers had students
use word processors, games, and presentation software. Between 50% and 65% of
students. All other uses of technology were noted by fewer than half the respondents
(Table 11).
100
Table 11
n %
Internet for research 29 90.6
Word processors (Word) 25 78.1
Presentation Software 25 78.1
Games (tutorial and basic skills development) 24 75.0
Spreadsheets (Excel) 21 65.7
Blackboard applications (online testing, wikis, blogs) 17 53.1
Special applications for reading, math (e.g., Accelerated Reader, Larson) 15 46.9
Discovery Education (digital textbooks) 14 43.8
Interactive White Board (SMARTboard, Promethean, graphing) 13 40.6
Databases 11 34.4
Learning management system 11 34.4
Webpage creation 9 28.1
Podcasting / Vodcasting (Audacity, Garage Band, MovieMaker, 8 25.0
Photostory)
Graphing calculators 7 21.9
'Clickers' (Class Performance System or Senteo) 3 9.4
CD-ROM encyclopedias 1 3.1
Probes for data acquisition (temperature, mass) 1 3.1
GPS / Geocaching 1 3.1
Webinar (AdobeConnect) 0 0.0
Other (Please Specify) 8 25.0
Participants also had the chance to identify other software applications or tools
they used with students. These responses included other LMS platforms, Google Suite,
K-12 digital flexbooks, simulator and coding applications, multi-media software, and
of early adolescents they incorporated into their technology integrated lessons. Nearly
all (93.8%) incorporated structure and clear limits in their technology integrated lessons.
101
(84.4%), and positive social interactions with adults and peers (81.3%). Only seven
(21.9%) reported incorporating physical activity into their classrooms (Table 12).
Table 12
n %
Structure and clear limits 30 93.8
Competence and achievement 28 87.5
Creative expression 27 84.4
Positive social interaction with adults and peers 26 81.3
Meaningful participation in families, school, and communities 19 59.4
Opportunities for self-definition 19 59.4
Physical activity 7 21.9
placed a high importance on establishing structure and clear limits. Interview data
further explained what best practices looked like for structure and clear limits.
Participant 5 shared,
Middle school students come to realize they have all this power and they
haven't quite yet developed as much empathy as they should for how much
lot more boundaries put in place for them from an external factor.
102
Structure and clear limits usually come in the form of an activity or project
trying to do, what their objective is, how to gather information and use
important it was to incorporate specific digital generation needs into their technology
teaching resources in their technology integrated lessons. Also, 78% to 82% of the
expert teachers utilized social-based activities (e.g., cooperative learning, wikis, games),
frequent transitions during class, digital literacy (i.e., teaching students how to use
software and how to choose valid resources on the internet), and student choice (Table
13).
Table 13
n %
Visually/media-rich teaching resources 29 90.6
Social-based activities 26 81.3
Frequent transitions during class 25 78.1
Digital literacy 25 78.1
Student choice 25 78.1
Participants were then asked how important it was to incorporate specific 21st
century skills into technology integrated lessons. Interestingly, responses showed 96.9%
solving into technology integrated lessons. Also, 93.8% incorporated learning activities
103
to develop communication skills and 87.5% incorporate learning activities that
supported creativity and thinking outside the box. In contrast, only 50% incorporated
Table 14
n %
Core content 31 96.9
Critical thinking/problem-solving 31 96.9
Communication skills 30 93.8
Creativity/thinking outside the box 28 87.5
Personal accountability (goal setting and evaluation) 24 75.0
Digital literacy 23 71.9
Leadership/accountability 16 50.0
Ethics/social responsibility 16 50.0
Throughout the survey, participants were asked to identify best practices used in
practices used in technology implementation. In the next section, data describes what
Research Question 2 asked: What are the most important best practices in
school teachers? Participants responded using a Likert scale with 1 = Low Importance
citizenship. Participants placed importance on all five, with the highest importance
104
placed on the necessity to provide equitable access to technology for all students
(80.0%) and discussing and modeling Internet safety with students (73.3%). Fewer than
half of the respondents rated the other items of high importance (Table 15).
Table 15
1 2 3 4 5
Provide equitable access to technology for all 0.0 0.0 3.3 13.3 80.0
students
Discuss and model the importance of Internet 0.0 3.3 6.7 13.3 73.3
safety with students
Model and expect students to use appropriate 0.0 3.3 16.7 33.3 46.7
documentation of sources on projects
Model and teach the safe, legal, and ethical 3.3 3.3 16.7 33.3 43.3
use of digital information and technology
Discuss and model the importance of 3.3 0.0 20.0 33.3 43.3
copyright and ethical use of digital
information
noting,
all students. For example, our middle school students [who] typically come
from poverty do not have access. They have access maybe to cellular
technology, but that's very different than an actual computer. The other
reality too is that with our students of poverty, they tend to not have access
to the internet at home. They have access at school because all of our
schools have free Wi-Fi for students, and they may have it if they go to the
105
public library, but even then, if they don't have access to a library close to
the noted factors are important, but really on having equitable access to
Students were able to check out and borrow computers this year, making a
huge difference and seeing the benefits for students to have equitable access.
Participants also placed a high importance on the need to teach students how to
be safe in their use of the Internet. Participant 3 described best practices that supported
We talk about what are safe websites, what legal and ethical boundaries are,
have their technology taken away from them, as well as a referral sent home.
Use of digital tools and resources. Participants were then asked to describe
specific practices, digital tools, and resources they used to support student success.
Responses showed half (50%) placed high importance on their use of email, productivity
106
and websites for personal and/or instructional use. As shown in Table 16, half of
participants (50%) also placed high importance on using and creating lessons and
student learning and creativity (e.g., interactive boards, wireless devices, individual
response systems).
Table 16
Practices Used to Support Student Success with Digital Tools and Resources (ISTE
Standards 4,5,6,7)
1 2 3 4 5
Email, productivity software, and websites for 0.0 10.0 6.7 33.3 50.0
personal/instructional use
Lessons and assessments that engage students 0.0 3.3 16.7 30.0 50.0
through interactive technologies to advance
learning and creativity
Activities that use productivity software and 0.0 3.3 20.0 36.7 36.7
websites
Digital tools and resources for communication, 0.0 3.3 30.0 36.7 30.0
production, collaboration, and instruction
Shared folders and/or LMS 3.3 10.0 26.7 23.3 36.7
and assessments that engaged students through interactive technologies. For example,
Participant 4 shared,
Our district uses Google Apps for Education or G Suite for Education. It is
and securely across devices. The suite includes G-Mail, Calendar, Contacts,
107
Google Classroom distributes assignments, sends feedback, and allows me
combined showed over 65% of teachers used interactive technology primarily for
presentations and were working toward interactive use in helping students be successful
Table 17
Standards 1,2,6,7)
1 2 3 4 5
Use interactive technology primarily for 0.0 17.2 17.2 37.9 27.6
presentations and working toward interactive
use with students
Use interactive technology primarily for 6.9 20.7 37.9 24.1 3.5
presentation
format in which they will share their learning and knowledge. Students can
108
Supporting student learning and assessment. Survey participants were asked
setting their own educational goals, managing their learning, and assessing their own
importance on designing, monitoring, and assessing the digital learning environment that
provided experiences to enable students to pursue their individual curiosity (Table 18).
Table 18
1,5,6)
1 2 3 4 5
Design a digital learning environment where students 0.0 3.5 20.7 31.0 44.8
are active in setting their own educational goals,
managing their learning, and assessing their progress
Design, monitor, and assess the digital learning 0.0 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3
environment that provides experiences that enable
students to pursue individual curiosity
Design customized and personalized learning 0.0 3.5 13.8 34.9 48.9
experiences based on achievement data
Design learning experiences using digital tools to 0.0 3.3 20.0 40.0 36.7
address diverse learning styles
Design learning experiences that incorporate the use of 0.0 6.7 13.3 40.0 40.0
various digital tools
Participant 4 placed a high importance on being able to design, monitor, and assess the
Students want to learn and will work through any situation that is difficult
109
because they have more ownership of what they are learning. This interest
drives their learning and creates curiosity to continue learning even after an
class. The other half are still learning English… I have in that class five
realistically at about maybe a second grade reading level. When I give them
students who are in the honors track. Those honors track students, I'm
giving them the online textbook… I tend to kind of see where they're at
educationally and try to build things that will really fit for them.
specific practices were to support student success in using technology for research and
required students to search for and evaluate information through electronic resources
and other appropriate technologies to explore real world issues and authentic problems
placed a strong or high importance on assigning projects that required students to locate
110
Table 19
1 2 3 4 5
Assign projects that require students to search for and 0.0 3.3 13.3 43.3 40.0
evaluate information through electronic resources and
other appropriate technologies exploring real world
issues and authentic problems
Assign projects that require students to locate information 0.0 6.7 20.0 36.7 36.7
electronically and give credit by citing sources
Assign questions that can be answered through a search of 0.0 6.7 26.7 43.3 23.3
student located electronic resources and other appropriate
technologies with limited assistance
Assign questions that can be answered through a search of 3.3 23.3 33.3 36.7 3.3
teacher-selected electronic resources
Show students electronic resources that relate to topics they 0.0 13.3 30.0 36.7 16.7
are studying
Interviews asked participants to expand on how they used technology tools for
speed to the speed of an aircraft… They need to use the internet and
research to find the average speed of a snail and the average speed of the
is not totally real world, but it's real world data that they are trying to find
111
Students had to research social media to prepare for a debate… I gave them
school level. Students were given a graphic organizer to fill out where to
compile their data and organize their citations identifying where they
obtained their information from and how they also had to evaluate the
Participant 1 also shared an example that required students to search for and
They have their own driving question, their own research question, and
we're doing a complex task format. Task format is where they're designing
their own tasks and following through with different benchmarks to show
how they are completing the project and communicating their process.
Students must find the information and find out if it's valid completely
are doing this research on their own to address real world issues.
Participant 3 shared an example that required students to search for and evaluate
112
Driving question is how much CO2 emission would it take for you to walk
from your house to school versus how much would it take for you to ride the
bus from your house to school, and then divide it by all the people on the
bus, and/or driving to school in a certain car that has certain miles per
gallon… Students needed to find their house, the distance from their house
to school. From there, students needed to calculate ratios to figure out how
much carbon dioxide is being omitted. The next step was students had to
compare how temperature could affect CO2. That’s problem solving, getting
Addressing adolescent needs. Participants were asked about how they met
and clear limits in a technology integrated lesson. Additionally, 96.7% placed a strong
Table 20
1 2 3 4 5
Structure and clear limits 0.0 3.3 6.7 13.3 76.7
Competence and achievement 0.0 3.3 0.0 36.7 60.0
Positive social interaction with 3.3 3.3 10.0 26.7 56.7
adults and peers
Meaningful participation in families, 0.0 6.7 10.0 43.3 36.7
school, and communities
Opportunities for self-definition 0.0 10.0 16.7 33.3 40.0
Creative expression 0.0 3.5 20.7 44.8 31.0
Physical activity 13.3 6.7 36.7 26.7 13.3
113
The data indicated the most important best practice to meet the needs of
adolescent students was to provide structure and clear limits in a technology integrated
lesson or learning activity. This was consistent with interview data. Participant 2
The atmosphere in the classroom in all my classes is strict in the way that I
tell them that it does not matter who you sit by, you can't say, "Oh, yay," or,
"Oh, no." You can't say either because you don't know how someone would
interpret that… I have to know that they can work with anybody.
follows,
I always work on structure and clear limits; I strive to find what will work
best. This year, using Google Slides has helped set expectations… Students
knew to look at slide and get set up for whatever that first slide said. That
has really helped with some expectations. Routine also helps with structure
and clear limits. Examples are how students know every day there's a
warm-up when they come in the door, they know that on a test day there's
time to study and the test starts. These class norms provide clear
positive social interactions with adults and peers; meaningful participation with family,
114
school, and community; opportunities for self-definition; creative expression, and
physical activity. Participant 4 described how she met adolescent needs, noting,
Most of the work in my class does not have a single correct answer, but
asked to provide their input on the importance of incorporating the specific needs of the
placed a strong to high importance on incorporating digital literacy (Table 21). Digital
literacy included showing students how to use software and/or how to choose valid
resources on the internet and necessitated integrating mini-lessons where students could
115
Table 21
1 2 3 4 5
Visual/media-rich teaching resources 0.0 6.9 10.3 48.3 34.5
Digital literacy 0.0 6.8 20.0 46.7 26.7
Student choice/flexible curriculum with interests 0.0 10.3 24.1 44.8 20.7
Frequent transitions during class 0.0 14.8 33.3 33.3 18.5
Social-based activities (cooperative learning, wikis) 0.0 10.0 33.3 40.0 16.7
Participants were asked how important it was to incorporate specific 21st century
skills into technology integrated lessons. Participant response showed 92.3% placed a
Table 22
1 2 3 4 5
Core content 0.0 0.0 7.7 11.5 80.8
Critical thinking/problem-solving 0.0 0.0 6.7 23.3 70.0
Communication skills 0.0 0.0 18.5 18.5 63.0
Creativity/thinking outside the box 0.0 0.0 20.0 26.7 53.
Personal accountability (goal setting and 3.3 0.0 16.7 33.3 46.7
evaluation)
Digital literacy 0.0 0.0 20.0 36.7 43.3
Leadership/accountability 0.0 6.9 17.2 41.4 34.5
Ethics/social responsibility 0.0 0.0 33.3 36.7 30.0
Interview participants were asked to give examples of how they used technology,
achievement, and how they knew it was successful, as well as describe the technology
116
tools used and what skills students needed to learn to use tools. Participants provided
and learning activities in different content areas. They provided many examples, some
similar and some different and varied based on the learning activity. Regardless of the
followed by online simulation learning activities and research and inquiry projects.
Other themes that emerged were the use of technology games, creating videos, and
117
Table 23
Participants were then asked to explain why they thought the learning activity
was so successful. Participants explained the lessons were engaging to middle school
students. Engagement was the top reason participants identified as to why lessons were
118
successful. Additional themes that emerged included because students were interested
in the content/project, it was fun or unique, it provided student choice, it had real world
collaboration, or it was hands-on. Table 24 presents the themes with sample quotations.
Table 24
119
Participants were asked how they judged a learning activity on its effectiveness
and/or student responses, student ability to explain their leaning, and project completion.
Table 25
120
Participants were asked to describe the technology tools used and what purpose
they were used for in their most successful. Google applications was a common tool
used by most participants. Other themes that emerged included interactive computer
applications, hyper docs, hardware (e.g., video cameras, robots), and laptops (Table 26).
Table 26
121
Participants were asked to explain the skills they needed to teach to use the
technology. The most common answer related to expectations and appropriate use.
Table 27
asking what extent specific barriers impacted their ability to teach technology integrated
lessons. The top three responses to barriers having a high impact, noted by at least half
(59.3%), lack of funding to implement technology (57.1%), and large class sizes
122
(50.0%). Two more barriers with over 40% of participants rating them as having a high
impact were not having enough time for learning and implementing new technology
(46.4%) and insufficient internet connectivity and bandwidth (42.9%). Other barriers
Table 28
Data from interview follow-up questions aligned with the top five barriers from
the survey, lack of technology resources, inadequate funding, large class size, limited
time for learning and implementing new technology, and insufficient connectivity.
123
[Bandwidth] was incredibly frustrating. That was probably the worst barrier
because it did not provide enough technology for everyone. The unreliable
wi-fi did not allow for technology to be used consistently. Next, I would
say not enough time for learning and implementing new technology… And
then I'm not comfortable introducing that to my students if I don't really feel
Fix the bandwidth. Put in time and energy to improving that, through
funding and resources. Next, provide students access to their own use of
Chromebooks. Students will then feel like they have equitable access.
Next, as far as not enough time, develop time in the day for professional
technology integration, but with the right advocacy and funding it was correctable.
However, the barrier of time to learn technology was a constant struggle. Participant 4
I am also a person who likes to learn and is always playing. Most teachers
are not like this and they are scared to take chances. Therefore, I feel the
answer that would fit most teachers would be there isn’t enough time for
124
As evidenced by participants, the barrier of not having enough time was an
ongoing challenge.
Summary
study focusing on three research questions. Survey questions and interview data helped
highlight best practices in technology integration in middles schools, determine the most
addresses major findings from the data, unexpected findings, recommendations for
further areas of study, conclusions, implications for actions, and researcher reflections.
125
CHAPTER V: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
technology integration, middle schools, and the unique sociology of middle school
Chapter III detailed the study’s design and methodology. Chapter IV presented the
results of the data analysis in the form of tables and anecdotes. Chapter V provides a
summary of the findings, then delves into conclusions and implications for action, as
The purpose of this mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to identify
perceived by expert middle school teachers. Additionally, it was the purpose of the
study to determine the most important best practices and perceived barriers to successful
126
Methodology
middle school teachers in five northern California counties who were identified by their
met the definition of an expert teacher for this study. The expert criteria consisted of
teachers who (1) taught sixth, seventh, or eighth grade within the specified northern
California counties of Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, and Solano; (2) had at
least three years middle school experience teaching with technology; (3) had specific
gathered from an initial survey instrument and used to assess frequency of usage and
practices used by expert middle school teachers. The researcher conducted interviews
following completion of the survey instrument with seven experts who volunteered by
providing their contact information on the survey instrument. The intent of the survey
and interviews was to identify and describe best practices and most important practices
integration. The data collection and analysis led to the major findings described in the
following section.
Major Findings
The most significant outcome of this study was the ranked compilation of the
most important best practices for technology integration in middle schools. In today’s
127
world, technology is pervasive; recognizing and including this in making education
relevant to students as they grow and prepare for the future is vital. Identifying best
necessity (Simmons & Blythe, 2008; Strahan et al., 2009; Tanner, 1973). Petty (2012)
noted technology was a successful avenue to meet middle school student needs and help
them be more engaged when used effectively. The findings from the literature were
validated in the current research and are presented here in alignment with the ISTE
rated the following best practices of high importance for developing student skill
achievement data
progress
128
A preponderance of participant responses from the open-ended survey questions
something that captures their interest with scaffolded guidance. From the literature,
Hattie (2012) described this as visible teaching and learning, meaning the teacher made
clear what was being taught and the students understood what they need to do and how
to accomplish it. This principle of visible teaching and learning needs to be consistently
present in the classroom during technology integration (Fullan & Langworthy, 2013).
The literature indicated digital resources that engage and appeal to student
developmental needs give students a voice and choice (New Pedagogies for Deeper
in the learning design as goals are set, which ensures learning outcomes are clear and
processes involved to reach goals are attainable and understood (Lenz & Kingston,
2016). The data from the study aligned with the literature in underscoring the
empowered learners.
recognize the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of living, learning, and working
in an interconnected digital world, and they act and model in ways that are safe, legal,
and ethical. Participants rated the following best practices of high importance for
129
3. Model and expect students to use appropriate documentation of sources on
projects
One of the open-ended survey question asked participants what skills middle
school teachers needed for the students to be successful. Most middle school teacher
experts stated setting clear expectations, modeling, and offering ongoing guidance of
appropriate use of technology were essential. Literature supported this finding wherein
Fullan and Langworthy (2014) stated it is fundamental to provide clear, explicit use of
how to apply and use technology to accelerate learning. The literature together with the
survey and interview data create strong support and evidence for Finding 2.
resources using digital tools to construct knowledge, produce creative artifacts, and
students and providing opportunities for students to explore issues and ideas through
well-developed research tools. Participants rated the following best practice of high
1. Assign projects that require students to search for and evaluate information
Several responses from the survey’s open-ended questions cited the best practice
130
based learning supporting student-centered inquiry activities. According to Killen
(2007), Taylor (2014), and Tileston (2011), providing learning interactions that mirrored
technology integration must happen across the curriculum in ways that deepen and
enhance the learning process through interactive research and project- or problem-
within a design process to identify and solve problems by creating new, useful, or
artifacts, constructing new information, and working through a design process that
Expert teachers did this by assigning projects requiring students to search for and
authentic problems.
students were engaged in the lesson or activity because it was: an interesting project,
like. Students connected to the activity when such characteristics were present.
Participants rated the following best practices of high importance for developing
innovative designers:
131
1. Assign projects that require students to search for and evaluate information
a. Presentation/production software
b. Online simulations
c. Research/inquiry
d. Technology games
f. Coding
Based the list provided by participants and validated in the literature, interactive learning
relevant and relatable to student lives (Erle, 2002; Ertmer; 2005; Marzano, 2015). The
data from this study aligned with the literature wherein it middle school students need
interactive learning environments for effective middle school technology integration that
sustains a climate and culture for learning through differentiated tools and strategies.
thinker who can develop and employ strategies for understanding and solving problems
in ways that leverage the power of technology to develop and test solutions. Middle
132
practices that incorporated technology applications to support early adolescent needs and
the needs of digital natives. This included 21st century skill development using a variety
of technology tools and thinking processes. Best practices supporting ISTE Standard 5
adolescent needs into technology integrated lessons, incorporating the needs of the
digital generation into technology integrated lessons, and incorporating 21st century skill
Expert middle school teachers of technology integration rated the following best
problem definitions to find solutions, collected data and applied relevant use of data,
broke problems into parts to understand automation and algorithmic thinking, and
developed a sequence of steps to create and test solutions. Participants best practices
participants utilize a variety of visual- and media-rich teaching resources that support
Google applications, Canva, Windows applications, Pear Deck, Prezi, ebooks, and
activities, providing opportunities to collaborate, interact with one another and adults
from the community, and get or give positive, helpful feedback. Data from this study
133
aligned with literature in that adolescents need applications in their learning activities
that provide positive social interactions with adults and peers, frequent transitions, and
express themselves creatively for a variety of purposes using the platforms, tools, styles,
formats, and digital media appropriate to their goals. The most important best practices
information to others and among others. One tool for this to occur was the use of a
learning management system (LMS) in the middle school classroom that allowed for
multiple and varied applications for communication and myriad technology resources
technology applications and creating lessons and assessments that engage students
through interactive technologies that advance learning and creativity. Participants rated
134
Participant responses to open-ended survey question provided insight as to the
importance of structure and clear limits; they stated this was crucial to an effective
supported middle school students and was essential to an effective technology learning
activity. Expert middle school teachers designed lessons incorporating clear examples,
rubrics, ongoing feedback, multiple drafts, and peer/adult feedback to support deeper
stressed the importance of what companies are looking for in their potential employees,
such as employees are those who can demonstrate they are critical thinkers, effective
Mandelbaum, 2011; P21, 2008; Petersen, 2010). The data and literature provided
students.
empower students to use digital tools to broaden their perspectives and enrich their
learning by collaborating with others and working effectively in teams locally and
globally. Best practices that supported Standard 7 included designing 21st century skill
problems addressing real-world issues that support ethics and social responsibility.
Participants rated the following best practices of high importance for global
collaboration wherein students used digital tools to connect with learners from a variety
135
learning, used collaborative technology to work with others including peers and experts
in the field, contributed constructively to project teams, and explored local and global
issues to work with others to investigate solutions. Two ways these were accomplished
were:
1. Assign projects that require students to search for and evaluate information
2. Use 21st century skill development applications that involve core content,
evaluation
Data from surveys and interviews showed a continued theme of the use of
middle school technology integration. Additionally, the literature explained how PBL
with 21st century skill development is vital in today’s education (Friedman &
Mandelbaum, 2011; Mahunik, 2014; P21, 2011; Welmond, 2002). Marzano (2015)
engagement. The data provided evidence of what was stated in the literature review and
with engaging, purposeful skill development helps provide the structures necessary for
136
middle school students to thrive (Glick, 2014; Stevenson, 2002; Thornburg, 1983; Wiles
et al., 2006). Additionally, Lenz and Kingston (2016) stated digital integration when
done well provided engaging learning environments where students could apply
providing an engaging learning environment for middle school students and how this
above all else needs to be the goal of an effective learning activity. Engagement kept
students learning at deeper levels. Engagement is one of the four key components to
learning (Marzano, 2015). Middle school students are developmentally unique, needing
developing 21st century skills (P21, 2008). Middle school students are best served when
they have participatory learning environments that fully engage for them to be
the survey when respondents ranked 13 possible barriers. The top five barriers from the
137
These findings were supported by the literature review (Avidov-Ungar & Eshet-
Alkalai, 2014). Unequal access to technology still exists as seen in the data and
literature (LEAD, 2012; Purcell et al., 2013). Lack of access to technology raises
Unexpected Findings
Three unexpected findings arose from the research. The first unexpected finding
was regarding teacher and student frequency of technology use, where teachers used
technology in the classroom much more frequently than students. The second
unexpected finding was that students as active participants in setting educational goals,
managing learning, and assessing their own progress was scored the lowest by the expert
teachers. Lastly, the literature review reported early adolescent developmental needs of
physical activity and social interaction were significant, but the data did not definitively
Conclusions
Based on the findings from this study and the review of literature, six
Conclusion 1
Based on the findings and as supported by the literature, middle school teachers
will not be successful integrating technology unless they design, customize, monitor,
and assess the digital learning environment while providing equal access to technology.
zone of proximal development with tasks that address their style of learning. Doing so
138
could enhance curiosity through student-centered inquiry and incorporating active
participation as they set their own educational learning goals and monitor their progress.
a technology integrated classroom (Fullan & Langworthy, 2013; Lenz & Kingston,
Conclusion 2
Based on the findings and as supported by the literature, middle school teachers
must utilize clear, explicit instruction on the proper use of the Internet and technological
digital citizen and how to use technology appropriately (ISTE, 2016). To develop a
responsible middle school digital citizen in a global world, teachers must use clear
expectations, model behaviors, provide access for all, and engage in ongoing instruction
and dialogue (Fryer, 2009; Fullan & Langworthy, 2013; Lopez, 2010).
Conclusion 3
school technology integration will not occur unless teachers provide students
activities. Students develop deeper levels of learning when they feel a sense of purpose
simulations, and video creation. As part of knowledge construction, students learn how
to apply knowledge, although they need to also be guided with clear expectations on
139
exploration of information. Fullan (2013) noted that unless technology is effectively
Conclusion 4
teachers do not create and deploy inquiry projects based on real-world problems to
deepen middle school student learning, technology integration will not be successful and
activities with the following characteristics will inspire innovative design; unique,
Conclusion 5
Based on the findings and as supported by the literature, middle school teachers
must create technology integrated lessons that support computational thinking through
thinking strategies by using an LMS where students can access resources to solve
utilize abstract models, and explore solutions with the use of rubrics, standards, and
140
Conclusion 6
Based on the findings and as supported by the literature, students will not
develop or deepen their learning if they are not engaged and provided equal
integration must happen across the curriculum in ways that deepen and enhance the
access to technology exist due to lack of resources creating growing inequities regarding
digital learning access between high- and low-income students and school districts
(LEAD, 2012). Equitable access is crucial for students to be prepared for the digital age.
The American public school system is the largest education system in the world,
serving millions of students per year (CDE, 2016). It is a system with a local-level
district board that matriculates students with the goal to be college- and career-ready
when they graduate from high school. The critical work for the K-12 public education
advance their learning to develop more skills in occupational training, and/or prepare
them to enter either public or private 4-year colleges One of the key areas of preparation
for the global age is in the area of deep learning that utilizes technology. The following
are implications for actions based on the findings and conclusions from this study.
141
instruct middle school teachers how to use technology in highly engaging lessons with
real-world applications.
for all conferences to ensure the quality sharing and collaboration on the topic of middle
school technology integration best practices. Expert middle school teachers provided
responses regarding their successful best practices and sharing these in a wide venue
regional laboratory schools to act as training grounds for interns and teachers. It is
with public and private universities to provide teacher training necessary to prepare
students for the 21st century. These partners should come together to create a laboratory
school, curriculum, pedagogy, and best practices data banks of lessons and units. The
laboratory schools would serve as places for testing new ideas and showcasing best
practices where experts can model and teach highly engaging, technology infused,
inquiry projects on real-world and relevant issues. This would work like a medical
recommended all middle schools have mandatory, dedicated weekly collaboration time
and part of that time be dedicated to focus on best practices related to the ISTE
142
standards. To realize this potential, districts must have early successful adoption of
appropriate pedagogies with technology and be willing to evolve as the teacher role
continually evolves (Dintersmith, 20187; Martin, 2018). Sites need to support educators
through effective learning models that support (1) student-centered inquiry, (2) 21st
century skills, (3) relevant real-world issues, (4) innovative designs, (5) clear and high
through student choice (Christensen, 2011, 2013; ISTE, 2016; Marzano, 2014, 2015;
McDowell, 2017).
Teacher credential programs must include more explicit units in the use of
Credentialing, that teacher credentialing entities (e.g., public and private colleges,
county offices) include training to support new teacher candidates with the knowledge
inquiry-based learning. The actual course curriculum for the teacher credential program
technology plan that puts adequate technology resources in the hands of every school
and every student. The state must ensure proper support and guidance to teachers, and
therefore to students, in how to use appropriate technologies for deeper learning. Once
funded, districts should be tasked to develop a local technology plan that incorporates
143
• Develop site leaders to support ongoing teacher and student learning
• Implement and support time within work day for professional learning
• Utilize professional learning models and provide time within the day to look
digital-based units with teachers paid to design and develop these resources
Margaret Honey at the Education Development Center testified before the U.S.
Senate that one could find ample empirical evidence that technology had a positive
impact with the right conditions in place (Honey, Culp, & Carrigg, 2000).
Based on the findings of this study, the following are recommendations for
further research:
that exists between the variables and how to increase the frequency of student
144
• Conduct a phenomenological study from the perspective of middle school
students regarding their use of technology daily both inside and outside the
school day
practices for technology integration across three identified levels (K-5, 6-8,
1:1 initiatives to identify and describe the best practices of leading a 1:1
technology initiative
The researcher took on the challenge of this topic six years ago when a local
centered inquiry learning. At that time, the researcher worked with the team piloting the
use of 1:1 technology in conjunction with an LMS delivering content through the lens of
character, global citizenship, agency). It was a new horizon to empower deeper levels of
student learning while keeping students engaged with access to technology and the
meaningful change that would help students for their future. After a few years of
building the team’s capacity and walking through the learning needed, the researcher
145
wondered if this was the best way to support deeper student learning to lead to future
success. This study arose out of that questioning. As the dissertation journey began,
there was little information published on this topic, let alone any known models at the
middle school level the researcher could find. After looking through the history of
technology and its rapid evolution the past 20 years, it helped guide the next steps in this
process.
This study evolved from a personal point of interest and showed the depth of
change still needed for effective technology integration. In completing this study, the
researcher was surprised as to how limited resources still are at school sites. Teachers
still struggle with functioning technology and internet access. It was quite disappointing
to discover the lack of support sites had and how teachers trying to champion effective
technology use in their class had many external barriers to overcome. The tenacity and
perseverance exemplified by the teachers still shines through despite the barriers.
Change is essential and needed from the district, community, teacher training
long-term game. Undergoing these changes takes multiple processes over many years to
Through the process of this study, the researcher realized technology infused
PBL aligned with the standards supports effective and successful student learning.
Students love to learn, and it is crucial to provide them with opportunities to keep that
love for learning alive. This can be done through fun, interactive, challenging, real-life
146
problems where students are empowered to develop meaningful solutions. Student-
ISTE Standards, SAMR, LoTi, New Tech Learning Outcomes, and TPACK all provide
resources needed to evolve and grow practice for the betterment of students.
understanding. The researcher developed a greater respect for and understanding of the
value of research and data, and grew in terms of clarity regarding how helpful
more courageous about ambiguity, tackling the ambiguity with a lens to frame it for
understanding, and developing decisions based on data. The researcher looks forward to
pursuing and applying the skills learned in this study to support schools and
communities toward transformation and change for students and their future.
147
REFERENCES
http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/tedfacpub/56.
Ahlberg, M., Turja, L., & Robinson, J. (2003). Educational research and development to
from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/deeper-learning-collaboration-key-rebecca-
alber
Alexander, W. M., & McEwin, C. K. (1989). Schools in the middle: Progress 1968-
Status_Programs_Practices_AMLE.pdf
148
Allison, B. N., & Rehm, M. L. (2007). Effective teaching strategies for middle school
12-16.
Anderson, T. (2012). Networks, Web 2.0, and the connected learner. Trends and Issues
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2003). Newsome Park Elementary: Making learning
http://edtechcases.info/schools/newsome/newsome.htm
Anfara, V. A., Jr., Andrews, G., & Mertens, S. B. (Eds.) (2005). The encyclopedia of
Association for Middle Level Education. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating
education.pdf
.org/blog/ school-wide-twitter-chats-stephen-baker?utm_source=twitter&utm
_medium=post&utm_campaign=blog-school-wide-twitter-chats-link
Barbour, M., Brown, R., Waters, L. H., Hoey, R., Hunt, J. L., Kennedy, K., & Trimm, T.
(2011). Online and Blended Learning: A Survey of Policy and Practice from K-
149
12 Schools around the World. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/iNACOL_IntnlReport2011.pdf
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it
Bellanca, J., & Brandt, R. (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn.
Becker, H. J. (2001, April). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Annual
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every
to-implement-classroom
Boss, S. (2011). Project based learning: What do the experts say. Retrieved from
https://www.edutopia.org/project-based-learning-experts#SylviaChard
Boss, S. (2013). PBL for 21st century success. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.
Brighton, P., & Foy, D. (2007). News values. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Brookfield, S. (1995). The getting of wisdom: what critically reflective teaching is and
why it’s important. Critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
150
Brooks-Gunn, J., Petersen, A. C., & Eichorn, D. (1985). The study of maturational
Brown, D. F. & Knowles, T. (2014). What every middle school teacher should know
Brush, T. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when using
Buckner, E., & Kim, P. (2013). Integrating technology and pedagogy for inquiry-based
10.1007/s11125013-9269-7.
Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C.A. (Eds.). (2000). Globalization and education: Critical
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/middle-school-
teachers.htm
151
Cañas, A. J., Reiska, P., Åhlberg, M., & Novak, J. D. (2003). Concept maps and short-
answer tests: probing pupils ‘learning and cognitive structure. The Sun.
Carrier, K. A. (2005). Key issues for teaching English language learners in academic
/fulltext/EJ752850.pdf
Casey, B. J., Giedd, J. N., & Thomas, K. M. (2000). Structural and functional brain
54, 241-257.
https://www.amle.org/BrowsebyTopic/WhatsNew/WNDet/TabId/270/ArtMID/8
88/ArticleID/455/Developmental-Characteristics-of-Young-Adolescents.aspx
Caskey, M. M., & Ruben, B. (2007). Under construction: The young adolescent brain. In
and the middle school (pp. 47-72). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Cator, K., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2014) Teachers for deeper learning:
http://b.3cdn.net/dpromise/43ccff9cfdd2cf0d57_tvm6v3qzx.pdf
Cennamo, K. S., Ross, J. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2014). Technology integration for
Chard, S. C. (1998). The project approach. New York, NY: Scholastic. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED340518.pdf
152
Christensen, C. M. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the
Christensen, C. M., Horn M. B., & Staker, H. (2013). Is K-12 blended learning
content/uploads/2014/06/Is-K-12-blended-learning-disruptive.pdf
www.usma.edue/cfe/Literature/Chung_07.pdf
http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/northhuntingdon/published_doc
uments/Comcast%20Internet%20Essentials/Questions%20and%20Answers.pdf
Cuban, L. (1993, Winter). Computer meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teacher College
Cuban, L. (2004). The blackboard and the bottom line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies
153
Dahl, R. E. (2004). Adolescent brain development: A period of vulnerabilities and
vulnerabilities and opportunities (pp. 1-22). New York, NY: The New York
Academy of Sciences.
commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
http://robdarrow.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/new-blended-learning-definition/
Dede, C. (2014). The role of digital technologies in deeper learning. Boston, MA: Jobs
dev.com/files/The-Role-of-Digital-Technologies-in-Deeper-Learning-
120114.pdf
Dessoff, A. (2012). Robert J. Marzano: Robert Marzano says it starts with students and
Detwiller, H. (2007). A model for visioning, planning, and designing a facility for
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/timelines/timelinetopics.cfm?tltopicid=12
154
DiPetro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E. W., & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in
teaching k-12 online: lessons learned from Michigan virtual school teachers.
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=e
rs&AN=89164056&site=eds-live
Drolet, M., & Arcand, I. (2013). Positive development, sense of belonging, and support
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1067610
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic87187.files/Earle02.pdf
EdSource. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle grades: Why some schools do better.
EdTech Review. (2016). Reasons why teachers & institutions are not able to bring
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/about/search/search_results.html?
q=technology&q_submit.x=0&q_submit.y=0
into public education: Promises and challenges, 42(1), 5-13. Retrieved from
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic87187.files/Earle02.pdf
155
Edutopia. (2007). What is successful technology integration? Retrieved from
http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-guide-description
http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-experts
Eliot, C. W. (1916). Changes needed in American secondary education (No. 2). New
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first and second order barriers to change: Strategies for
4(4), 47 61.
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for
53(4), 25-39.
Ferdig, R. E., & Kennedy, K. (2014) Handbook of research on k-12 online and blended
Learning_Ferdig-Kennedy-etal_web.pdf
Figg, C., & Jaipal, K. (2012). TPACK-in-Practice: Developing 21st century teacher
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment
156
Finley, T. (2014). Dipsticks: Efficient ways to check for understanding. Retrieved from
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/dipsticks-to-check-for-understanding-todd-finley
793-799.
Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D., & Levin, D. (2012). Reimagining the K-12 Textbook in a
Association.
Friedman, T. L., & Mandelbaum, M. (2011). That used to be us: How America fell
behind in the world it invented and how we can come back. New York, NY: D &
M Publishers, Inc.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fryer, W. (2009). Why should middle school students blog? Moving at the speed of
should-middle-school-students-blog/
Fullan, M., & Donnelly, K. (2013). Alive in the swamp: Assessing digital innovations in
www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/Alive_in_the_Swamp.pdf
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep
157
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A Rich Seam: How pedagogies find deep
content/uploads/2014/01/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century.
Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. G. (2005). A year in the life: Two seventh grade teachers
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. & Airasian, P. W. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for
analysis and application (9th ed.) Uppers Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Ghemawat, P. (2007). Why the world isn’t flat. Foreign Policy March-April.
Glick, M. (2014). Three brain research principles for the 21st century classroom.
principles-for-the-21st-century-classroom
/2104/5054/Sheila_Gloer_edd.pdf?sequence=2
158
Goleman, D., & Senge, P. (2014). The triple focus: A new approach to education. More
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3210267)
Gray, K., & Steer, D. N. (2012). Personal response systems and learning: it is the
pedagogy that matters, not the technology. Journal of College Science Teaching,
41(5), 80-88.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical
393-416.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New
Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. (2013). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. New
159
Hayes, W. (2004). Are we still a nation at risk two decades later? Lanham, Md.
Scarecrow Education.
Hayes, D. N. (2007). ICT and learning: Lessons from Australian classrooms. Computers
Heick, T. (2014. Fixing detached schools via tech [Blog]. Retrieved from
http://www.edutopia.org/blog/fixing-detached-schools-via-tech-terry-heick
from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/free-tech-integration-resources
from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/meaning-tech-integration-elementary-mary-
beth-hertz
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning:
Holland, B. (2014). The backchannel: Giving every student a voice in the blended
backchannel-student-voice-blended-classroom-beth-holland?utm_source=
voice-blended-classroom-jar-of-jargon-image
160
Honey, M., Culp, K. & Carrigg, F. (2000). Perspectives on technology and education
research: lessons from the past and present. Journal of Educational Computing
Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Retrieved from
http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-
Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf
Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2014, December 10). Blended learning is about more than
/2014/12/10/blended-learning-is-about-more-than-technology.html
International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE Standards for students.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE Standards for teachers.
Ito, M. (2013). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning
Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittani, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P.G., Pascoe, C.J.,
& Robinson, L. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of
found.org.
161
James, M. L. (2009). Middle school teachers’ understanding of technology integration.
Jones, N. (2006). From the sage on the stage to the guide on the side: The challenge for
Joubert, M., & Sutherland, R. (2009). A perspective on the literature: CPD for teachers
Teaching of Mathematics.
Collection), TC89-TC97.
Kellough, R. D., & Kellough, N. G. (2008). Teaching young adolescents: Methods and
resources for middle grades teaching (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Killen, R. (2007). Teaching strategies for outcomes-based education (2nd ed.). Cape
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs
162
S0742051X1200131X-main.pdf?_tid=5080ddb6-7312-11e6-ad22-
00000aacb361&acdnat=1473043497_12bd926bcf837a926639439d5b11ee6b
Knowles, T., & Brown, D. F. (2000). What every middle school teacher should know.
Kohler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
westga.edu/file/view/KopchaTTeachersPerceptions.pdf
Krathwohl, (2009). Methods of educational and social science research. Long Grove,
technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue
http://www.leadcommission.org/about-lead
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., Zickuhr, K., (2010). Social Media & mobile internet
use among teens and young adults. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED525056)
163
Lenz, B., & Kingston, S. (2016). Blending technology into project based learning.
technology-into-project-based-learning
Lounsbury, J. H. (1960). How the junior high school came to be. Retrieved April 2016
from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_196012_lounsbury.pdf
Luckin, R., Bligh, B., Manches, A., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., & Noss, R. (2012).
learning_report.pdf
Machado, L. J., & Chung, C. J. (2015). Integrating technology: The principals’ role and
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/42873-165716-1-PB%20(1).pdf
Magana, S. & Marzano, R.J. (2014). Enhancing the art & science of teaching with
Mahunik, P. (2014). Technology and education – how are public schools preparing
http://www.newtechnetwork.org/social/podcasts/technology-and-education-how-
are-public-schools-preparing-students
164
Mansilla, V. B., & Gardner, H. (2009). Disciplining the mind. Challenging the Whole
107.
chapters/Marzano_Engaging_SampleChapter.pdf
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
ASCD.
McDowell, M. (2017). Rigorous PBL design: three shifts for developing confident and
Mertens, S. B., Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Caskey, M. M. (Eds.). (2007). The young
Meyer, P. (2011). The middle school mess. Education Next, 11(1). Retrieved from
http://educationnext.org/the-middle-school-mess/
165
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008, March). Introducing technological pedagogical
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). Looking back to the future of
Modgil, S., Modgil, C., & Brown, G. (Eds.). (2013). Jean Piaget. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Moeller, B. & Reitzes, T. (2011) Integrating technology with student centered learning.
measuring classroom technology use. Learning and leading with technology, 23,
40-40.
Erlbaum Associates.
Technology in Education.
Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Integrating computer technology into the
classroom: Skills for the 21st century (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education,
Inc.
166
Nagel, M. C. (2010). The middle years learner's brain. In D. Pendergast & N. Bahr
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). State of education data profiles.
short&s1=06
Office.
excerpt.pdf
National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for
National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young
167
Norris, C., Smolka, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Convergent analysis: A method for
Pardini, P. (2002). Revival of the K-8 School. School Administrator, 59(3), 6-12.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st century skills, education and
Skills.org/documents/21st_century skills_education_and_
competitiveness_guide.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). P21 common core toolkit: A guide to
aligning the common core state standards with the framework for 21st century
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Technology High School in Napa, California [Special Issue]. New Directions for
168
Peterson, P. E. (2010). Saving schools: From Horace Mann to virtual learning.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International
University Press.
Piaget, J. (1960). The child's conception of the world. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:
Humanities Press.
Pitler, H., & Barley, Z. (2004). McREL Technology Initiative: The Development of a
Learning.
Puentedura, R. (2012). The SAMR model: Background and exemplars. Retrieved from
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/08/23/samr_backgroundexe
mplars.pdf
Puentedura, R. (2014). SAMR and Bloom’s Taxonomy: Assembling the Puzzle. Retrieved
from https://www.graphite.org/blog/samr-and-blooms-taxonomy-assembling-
the-puzzle
Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchannan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013) How teachers are using
are-using-technology-at-home-and-in-their-classrooms/
169
Raphael, L., & Burke, M. (2012). Academic, social, and emotional needs in a middle
13.
Reiser, R. A. & Dempsey, J. V. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and
Richardt, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to
Rockoff, J. E., & Lockwood, B. B. (2010). Stuck in the Middle. Education Next, 10(4).
Roehlkepartain, E. C., Benson, P. L., King, P. E., & Wagener, L. (2005). The Handbook
170
Russell, A., Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, & United States of America.
Saulnier, B. M. (2008). From “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side” revisited: (un)
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.613.6580&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Scott, E. S. (2013). Secrets from the middle: Making who you are work for you.
Scudero, D. (2015). Opening welcome to Napa Valley Unified School District Learning
http://artseducator20.iu1.wikispaces.net/file/view/schrum.pdf/346756304/schrum
Sharples, M., & Anastopoulou, S. (2012). Designing orchestration for inquiry learning.
http://www.schrockguide.net/samr.html
171
Sigler, J. W & Hierbert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s
teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Simmons, R., & Blyth, D. (2008). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal
change and the school context. New York, NY: Aldine Transaction.
Spires, H., Lee, J. Turner, K. & Johnson, J. (2008). Having our say: Middle grade
Standish, E. W. (2008). The impact of two middle school grade level start points, 5th-
Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration
http://www.setda.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SETDA_Navigating-the-
Digital-Shift_full_10.19.15.pdf
Stevenson, C. (2002). Teaching ten to fourteen year olds (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
172
Strahan, D., L'Esperance, M., & Van Hoose, J. (2009). Promoting harmony: Young
Strong, J. H., Tucker, P D., & Hindman, J. L. (2004). Handbook for qualities of effective
79–88.
Tileston, D. W. (2004). What every teacher should know about effective teaching
Tileston, D. W. (2011). Ten best teaching practices: How brain research and learning
styles define teaching competencies (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Exploring the digital nation: Computer and internet use at home. (Report).
/exploringthedigitalnation-computerandinternetuseathome.pdf
173
DC: Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf
learning
Van Orden, J. (2014 How to podcast tutorial. Promoting your podcast. Retrieved from
http://howtopodcasttutorial.com/index.htm
http://jea.sagepub.com.libproxy.chapman.edu/content/31/1/99.full.pdf+html
Velez, A. (2012). Preparing students for the future--21st century skills. (Doctoral
No. 3514336)
Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2010). Technology integration barriers: urban school
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach
the new survival skills our children need—and what we can do about it. New
Wavering, M. J. (1995). Educating young adolescents: Life in the middle. New York,
174
Wang, S. K., & Hsu, H. Y. (2008). Use of the webinar tool (elluminate) to support
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2012). Keeping pace with K-
Weiss, C. C., & Kipnes, L. (2006). Reexamining middle school effects: A comparison of
middle grades students in middle schools and K–8 schools. American Journal of
28.
Wiles, J., Bondi, J., & Wiles, M. T. (2006). The essential middle school (4th ed.). Upper
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002, Spring). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a
laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and
Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools. New
Wetzel, K., & Marshall, S. (2011). TPACK goes to sixth grade: Lessons from a middle
175
Williams, A. (2015) Meet Alpha: The next ‘next generation.’ New York Times.
next-next-generation.html?_r=0
standards: what every k-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR:
Wong, K. K. (2012). Book Review. Saving schools: From Horace Mann to virtual
/10.1086/666381
176
APPENDICES
177
178
179
180
APPENDIX B – EXPERT TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION TEACHER SURVEY
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
APPENDIX C – INFORMED CONSENT AND BILL OF RIGHTS
STUDY: Technology Integration: A Mixed methods Study of Best Practices Used by Middle School
Teachers Identified as Experts of Technology Integration in Middle Schools
2. To be told what will happen in the study and whether any of the procedures,
drugs, or devices are different from what would be used in standard practice.
3. To be told about the risks, side effects, or discomforts of the things that may
happen to him/her.
4. To be told if he/she can expect any benefit from participating and, if so, what the
benefits might be.
5. To be told what other choices he/she has and how they may be better or worse
than being in the study.
6. To be allowed to ask any questions concerning the study both before agreeing to
be involved and during the course of the study.
8. To refuse to participate at all before or after the study is started without any
adverse effects.
If at any time you have questions regarding a research study, you should ask the
researchers to answer them. You also may contact the Brandman University Institutional
Board Review Board, which is concerned with the protection of volunteers in research
projects. The Brandman University Institutional Review Board may be contacted either
by telephoning the Office of Academic Affairs at (949) 341-9937 or by writing to the
Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Brandman University, 16355 Laguna Canyon Road,
Irvine, CA 92618.
200
Participant Invitation and Informed Consent
DATE:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this mixed methods study is to identify and describe best practices
in technology integration in middle schools. Additionally, it is the purpose of the study to
determine the most important best practices and perceived barriers to successful technology
integration as perceived by expert middle school teachers of technology. Results from this
study will be summarized in a doctoral dissertation.
PROCEDURES: If you choose to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in
an approximately 20-minute electronic survey regarding middle school technology integration.
Additionally, I will be asking for volunteers willing to participate in a follow up interview to
further discuss and add depth to my findings. (You will be prompted to provide your name and
contact information at the end of the survey if you are interested in participating.) If you should
choose to participate, the approximately 30 to 45-minute interview will be audio-recorded for
transcription purposes.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS: There are no major benefits to you for participating; nonetheless, a
potential benefit may be that you will have an opportunity to identify future best practices for
middle school technology integration. The information from this study is intended to inform
teachers, researchers, and leaders on the topic of best practice middle school technology
integration.
ANONYMITY: If you agree to participate in the survey and/or the interview, you can be
assured that it will be completely confidential. The survey is in SurveyMonkey and is
anonymous. No names will be attached to any notes or records from interviews. All information
will remain in locked files, accessible only to the researchers. No employer will have access to
specific survey data or interview information. You will be free to stop the survey and/or
interview and withdraw from the study at any time. You are also encouraged to ask any
questions that will help you understand how this study will be performed and/or how it will
affect you. Feel free to contact the principal investigator, Carliza Bataller, at XXXXXXXX or by
phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX, to answer any questions or concerns you may have. If I have any
questions, comments, or concerns about the study or your rights as a participant, you may write
or call the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Brandman University, at 16355
Laguna Canyon Road, Irvine, CA 92618, 949-341-7641.
Sincerely,
Carliza Bataller
Brandman University
201
Consent to Participate in a Research Study
Adult Participants
IRB Study # __________________
Consent Form Version Date: July 30, 2017
Title of Study: Technology Integration: Teaching Strategies, Best Practices, and Technology Tools Used
by Teachers Identified as Experts in Technology Integration in Middle Schools
Principal Investigator: Carliza Bataller
Study Contact Phone Number: (707) xxx-xxxx
Study Contact Email: xxxx@
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Cindy Petersen
Advisor Phone Number: (xxx)xxx-xxxx
Faculty Advisor Email: [email protected]
What is some general information you should know about research studies?
You are being asked to take part in a research study. To join the study is voluntary. You may refuse to
join, or you may withdraw your consent to be in the study for any reason, without penalty.
Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new information may help people in the
future. You may not receive any direct benefit from being in the research study. There also may be risks
to being in research studies.
Details about this study are discussed below. It is important that you understand this information so that
you can make an informed choice about being in this research study.
You will be given a copy of this consent form. You should ask the researchers named above any
questions you have about this study at any time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
Participant’s Agreement:
I have read and fully understand the consent form. I have asked all the questions I have at this time. I
have received a copy of this form. I voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.
Date:____________________________________Time:_________________________(a.m. / p.m.)
202
APPENDIX D – INFORMED CONSENT AND INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Brandman University
Interview Informed Consent & Interview Protocol
Your participation in this interview is voluntary. You may choose not to participate. If
you decide not to participate in this research, you can withdraw at any time.
203
e) My participation in this research study is voluntary. I may decide to not
participate in the study and I can withdraw at any time. I can also decide not to
answer particular questions during the interview if I so choose. I understand that
I may refuse to participate or may withdraw from this study at any time without
any negative consequences. Also, the Investigator may stop the study at any
time.
f) No information that identifies me will be released without my separate consent and
that all identifiable information will be protected to the limits allowed by law. If the
study design or the use of the data is to be changed, I will be so informed and my
consent re-obtained. I understand that if I have any questions, comments, or
concerns about the study or the informed consent process, I may write or call the
Office of the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Brandman University, at 16355
Laguna Canyon Road, Irvine, CA 92618, (949) 341-7641.
I acknowledge that I have received a copy of this form and the “Research
Participant’s Bill of Rights.” I have read the above and understand it and hereby
consent to the procedure(s) set forth.
Date
204
Interview Protocol
“My name is Carliza Bataller, I serve middle school students and their families as an
educator at American Canyon Middle School and look for ways to improve our practice
to better prepare our students for success in their lives. I’m a doctoral candidate at
Brandman University in Organizational Leadership. Briefly, I am conducting research to
identify best practices of technology integration in middle schools. Additionally, I am
researching the level of importance of those practices and possible barriers to technology
integration.
I will be conducting approximately 5 - 6 interviews with middle school teachers
identified as expert on technology integration. The information you provide, along with
the information provided by others, hopefully will provide some insight into middle
school technology integration.
Incidentally, even though it appears a bit awkward, I will be reading most of what I say.
The reason for this is to guarantee, as much as possible, that my interviews with all
participants will be conducted in the most similar manner possible.
Informed Consent (required for Dissertation Research)
I would like to remind you any information that is obtained in connection to this study
will remain confidential. All the data will be reported without reference to any
individual(s) or any institution(s). After I record and transcribe the data, I will send it to
you via electronic mail so that you can check to make sure that I have accurately
captured your thoughts and ideas.
You received the Interview Informed Consent and Brandman Bill of Rights in an email
and responded with your approval to participate in the interview. The Informed Consent
included a confirmation regarding the audio recording and confidentiality. Before we
start, do you have any questions or need clarification about either document?
We have scheduled approximately 30 minutes for the interview. At any point during the
interview you may ask that I skip a particular question or stop the interview altogether.
For ease of our discussion and accuracy I will record our conversation as indicated in the
Interview Informed Consent.
Do you have any questions before we begin? Okay, let’s get started, and thanks so much
for your time. The interview is a follow up to the survey instrument and will be used to
delve deeper into the topics measured there. The three focus areas of the research are 1)
best practices in middle school technology integration, 2) identifying most important
best practices in middle school technology integration and 3) identifying barriers to
middle school technology integration.
Background:
1. Please share with me your professional and educational background.
205
You have been identified as an expert in middle school technology integration by your
principal or superintendent. (Note: a copy of the survey instrument is provided to you
for voluntary reference in answering the following questions.)
3. The survey (question 4) results indicated that 70% of experts in middle school
technology integration modeled all five components of digital citizenship. Can
you provide some specific best practice examples of modeling digital
citizenship?
4. Similarly, the results from question 5 of the survey reported that 69.3% of
respondents use all five components as outlined. Can you provide some specific
examples of how you use digital tools and resources as outlined in the survey?
5. Reviewing question 6, can you provide some specific examples of how you use
technology interactively?
7. The ISTE Standards address the use of technology for research and problem
solving (reference survey question 8). Can you provide some specific best
practice examples of this?
9. The survey contained a section for teachers to rate the most important best
practices (reference question 13 -20). As you review these, could you specify 3 –
5 of these that you would identify as the most important?
•
10. The survey identified the top 5 barriers to middle school technology integration
as
Lack of technology resources (Hardware, Network, and/or Software, Inadequate
funds to implement
instructional technology, large class size, not enough time for learning and
implementing new technology,
Insufficient internet connectivity (Bandwidth)
11. If there were one piece of advice you could give to middle school teachers who
are struggling with technology integration – what would that be?
206
Thank you very much for your time. If you like, when the results of my
_____________________________________________
MORE CONVERSATION:
need to encourage an interviewee to say more about a question you have asked
207
APPENDIX E
208