1 ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS INTO HIGHACCESS LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS INTO HIGHACCESS

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

BY

JASON ROSEBERRY

DR. SERENA SALLOUM ADVISOR

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY

MUNCIE, IN

MAY 2016

1

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

BY

JASON ROSEBERRY

DISSERTATION ADVISOR: DR. SERENA SALLOUM

APPROVED BY:

____________________________________ ____________

Dr. Serena Salloum, Committee Chairperson Date

____________________________________ ____________

Dr. John Ellis, Committee Member Date

____________________________________ ____________

Dr. Michael O’Hara, Committee Member Date

____________________________________ ____________

Dr. Jeff Swensson, Committee Member Date

____________________________________ ____________

Dr. Robert Morris, Committee Member Date

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY

MUNCIE, INDIANA

MARCH, 2, 2015

2

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 3

ABSTRACT

As schools have placed an increased emphasis on instructional technology, the amount of money spent on hardware and student devices in classrooms has increased significantly ( Nagel,

2014). Because a dministrators are underestimating the instructional shift required for effective integration of these devices, they are not allocating enough time and resources for teacher professional development (Sawchuck, 2010). This has contributed to a digital divide between teachers in districts across the state, and, even, within grade levels at the same school. The result is an epidemic of classrooms with high access to technology, but low use among educators.

The purpose of this study was to explore how two highlyregarded Indiana school districts prepared their middle school teachers to integrate technology. Mixed methods were used to discover how teacher and administrators described their professional development, and how closely these descriptions reflected ten characteristics of effective professional development identified in the literature review. T he study also attempted to operationalize the ISTET standards as a method for approximating practices. Data were collected using teacher surveys, classroom observations, and focus groups.

Both schools emphasized a standardized format (Gaible & Burns, 2005) for their trainings. While this worked well for introducing new content, this single session approach did not allow for other effective strategies identified in the literature review such as time for reflection (Tillema, 2000), increased teacher voice regarding content (Opfer & Pedder, 2011) , and varied delivery methods (Schrum & Levin, 2013). The descriptions within the ISTET

Standards were found useful for identifying instructional traits, but the results skewed towards identifying teacherdirected learning experiences. As far as the characteristics of effective

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS professional development from the literature review, the study found that these two schools emphasized learning experiences that considered teacher beliefs (Desimone, 2009), were

embedded within job responsibilities (Nuthall & AltonLee, 1993) , measured teacher growth

(Opfer & Pedder, 2011), and focused on student learning outcomes ( Clarke & Hollingsworth,

2002).

4


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This challenging process would not have been possible without the efforts from an army of people. First, thank you to Dr. Ellis for helping me a craft a literature review, Dr. Swensson for jumping into the open seat, and Dr. O’Hara for putting up with me since I was 19. Their thoughtful feedback and suggestions placed their mark on my work. A very special thank you to my chair, Serena Salloum for her knowledge, encouragement, patience, and rigorous comments.

Serena was always a catalyst and inspiration for my writing and research throughout the process.

I am also grateful for the contributions and patience from my FiveStar family. A special nod to my boss, Jim Benson, who brought me into a supportive company where I could bring these big ideas to life. I am also grateful for my “old” boss, Kristin Nass, who was so influential at modeling what amazing school leadership looks like in “real life.”

The warmest of acknowledgements to my friends and family for their love and support.

Eli Beardsley was a colleague and counselor. My parents, Danny and Norma Roseberry, are perhaps the greatest parents and most supportive people on the face of the earth. My little sister,

Marcy Kist, provided a willing target for witty verbal stress release, and John L. Smith was always good for a welltimed distraction.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the love and patience of my three “B” boys (Beardsley,

Buerk, and Brooks), and my wife, Hannegan. You have shared me for many years with this research, and I now look forward to quality time without divided attention. I don’t know how

people get by in their lives without a person like Hannegan. I am thankful God blessed me with her love and support. She inspires me to be a better person than I was yesterday.

5


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………..

5

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………....

89

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….

10

Statement of the Problem………...…………………………………………………….

11

Research Questions………...…………………………………………………………..

13

Definition of Terms………...…………………………………………………………..

13

Theoretical Framing………...………………………………………………………….

14

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 17

Overcoming the Digital Divide………...……………………………………………… 17

Characteristics of Effective Professional Development for Teachers………………….

20

Professional Development Specific to Technology Integration………………………..

30

Technology Training and Transformational Learning Theory………………………....

37

Standards and Measurement of Professional Development………………………........

38

Conclusion………...…………………………………………………………………....

40

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………....

42

Research Questions…………………………………….................................................

42

Research Design……………………………………......................................................

42

Description of the Sample…………………………………….......................................

43

The Instruments…………………………………….......................................................

46

Data Collection……………………………………........................................................

48

Data Analysis……………………………………..........................................................

49

The Researcher’s Role…………………………………….............................................

50

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS……………………………………......................................

52


Rogers Middle School…………………………………….............................................

52

Summary…………………………………….................................................................

76

Stark Middle School……………………………………...............................................

78

Summary…………………………………….................................................................

99

Comparison of Schools……………………………………...........................................

101

Combined Dataset of Both Schools………………………………….….......................

115

Chapter Summary……………………………………....................................................

115

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS…………………………………….............................

117

Research Questions…………………………………….................................................

117

Teacher Preparation (R1)……………………………………........................................

118

ISTET Standards (R2)……………………………………............................................

120

Ten Identified Traits for Effective Professional Development (R3)...............................

122

Implications for Policy....................................................................................................

128

Limitations.......................................................................................................................

130

Implications for Theory...................................................................................................

130

Suggestions for Future Research.....................................................................................

131

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................

134

APPENDIX...........................................................................................................................

142

Appendix A Survey......................................................................................................

142

Appendix B Observation Tool.....................................................................................

146

Appendix C Focus Group Questions...........................................................................

147


LIST OF TABLES

8

Table 3.1: Comparison of District Demographics..…………………………….……………….46

Table 4.1: Rogers Middle School Survey/Observation Data by ISTET Standard …...…..…5556

Table 4.2: Rogers Middle School Grade Level Comparison of Means ……………..…....….….57

Table 4.3: Rogers Middle School Years of Experience Comparison of Means ………….…..…58

Table 4.4: Rogers Middle School Subject Area Comparison of Means…. …..…….……...……59

Table 4.5: Ten Identified Traits for Effective Professional Development: Rogers Middle

School………………………………………………………………………………….……... …66

Table 4.6: Rogers Middle School SAMR Levels (Observed) …………………….....……..……76

Table 4.7: Stark Middle School Survey and Observation Data by ISTET Standard ..….....….…80

Table 4.8: Stark Middle School Grade Level Comparison of Means... …………………....….…82

Table 4.9: Stark Middle School Years of Experience Comparison of Means …….……….…8384

Table 4.10: Stark Middle School Subject Area Comparison of Means ………………………….85

Table 4.11: Ten Identified Traits for Effective Professional Development: Stark Middle

School …………………....……………………………………………………………………... 91

Table 4.12: Stark Middle School SAMR Levels (Observed) ........................................................99

Table 4.13: Comparison of Districts by ISTET Standards ……..…………………………102103

Table 4.14: SAMR Comparison of Schools ………………………………….……………...…104

Table 4.15: Overall Comparison of Means for Schools …………………………...……...……105


Table 4.16: Comparison of Ten Identified Traits for Effective Professional Development ……106

Table 4.17: Combined Grade Level Comparison of Means …………………………..…......…107

Table 4.18: Combined Years of Experience Comparison of Means …………………....…108109

Table 4.19: Combined Subject Area Comparison of Means ………………………………..….110


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

In 1975, Intel Corporation founder Gordon Moore observed that throughout the history of technology the number of transistors in a circuit doubles approximately every 18 months

(Willoughby, 2005). This observation that technology was doubling every two years came to be known as Moore’s Law. It was 1981, when two IBM scientists, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich

Rohrer, invented the scanning tunneling microscope (Schechter, 2010). This device was capable of not only reading the surface of each atom, but eventually allowed the scientists to arrange 35

Xenon atoms into the letters “IBM.” On the “Today” show on NBC in 1994, the anchors, Katie

Couric and Bryant Gumbel, could be heard discussing how to pronounce the @ in an email address, and Couric asks, “What is the internet, anyway?” (“1994: Today,” n.d.).

These three examples demonstrate how technology has magnified and changed our culture with every step of its development. As the physical size of our technology has continued to shrink, the role it plays in our life has expanded. A Pew Internet & Tech Survey in April,

2012 revealed that mobile devices are nearly ubiquitous with 88% of adults reporting owning a smartphone (Smith, 2012). Many industries have been forced to embrace the rise in mobile access or face disruption or extinction.

Candice Dodson is the Director of eLearning for the Indiana Department of Education, and the ChairElect for SETDA a national organization for statelevel technology leaders.

During an interview, she commented that there is a strong movement towards increasing the use of educational technology through individual learning devices in schools today (personal communication, November 12, 2015 ). Perhaps the most high profile example of technology

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 11 focused on highaccess learning environments instead of teacher development was the Los

Angeles Unified School District’s 1:1 initiative. The one billion dollar initiative put tens of thousands of iPads in students’ hands. The iPads were confiscated weeks later due to ineffective security, theft, lack of parent communication, and confusion over a $500 million purchase of curriculum from Pearson (Herold, 2014). This led the school district to realize their lack of ability to gauge their readiness, train students and staff on methods and student responsibility, and communicate effectively with parents.

At the time of this writing, Los Angeles Unified hired consultants to gather survey data, interviews with stakeholders, and other data related to the use of the devices in order to make better decisions moving forward. “Districts need to take the time to go through the strategic planning process as they manage change and investigate opportunities for students to use technology in meaningful ways” (C. Dodson, personal communication, November 12, 2015).

Statement of the Problem

Ss schools have placed an emphasis on instructional technology, the amount of money spent on hardware in classrooms has increased significantly. Nationally, educational technology spending increased by an average of 11% (20122013), and schools spent 13 billion dollars on technology in 2013 ( Nagel, 2014). Despite this increased allocation of resources, many educators still do not comprehend the technological shift that has occurred within our culture (C.

Dodson, personal communication, November 12, 2015) . Administrators are placing devices in teachers’ classroom without providing them adequate professional development (Sawchuck,

2010). This lack of effective training has contributed to a digital divide between teachers in districts across the state, and, even, within grade levels at the same school. The result is an

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS epidemic of classrooms with high access to technology, but low use among educators ( Wood,

Mueller, Willoughby, Specht, & Deyoung, 2005).

12

Significance of the Problem

While mobile devices and blended instruction have undeniable potential to expand the accessibility of learning opportunities (Plair, 2008), it is clear that more studies are needed to understand how school districts are preparing teachers to integrate technology to positively impact student learning and instruction (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Teachers state many reasons for rejecting technology adoption and blended techniques including: not easy to use, changing daily practice is too dramatic, not enough professional development, increased workload, and inability to understand the significance. Gaible and Burns (2005) reported that teacher professional development must be relevant to the problems teachers face and of highquality. They suggest that the training is most often successful when the teachers feel it will increase their productivity and efficacy.

This study identifies effective practices for creating and implementing training to assist educators in incorporating technology into their classrooms. Much of the training currently offered to educators within their school building does not meet their needs as adult learners, and, therefore, is not relevant (Sawchuck, 2010). It has also become clear that good practices for using and teaching with devices and blended instruction are undefined, leading to more confusion and lowquality professional development (R

1

). There are few recognized methods/standards for measuring educator efficacy when it comes to implementing and using new technologies (R

2

). Furthermore, without quality professional learning experiences, it is difficult for teachers to break the highaccess/lowuse cycle seen in schools today (R

3

).


R

2

R

3

Research Questions

R

1

How did two Indiana school districts that won the IDOE Innovation and Learning Grant prepare their middle school teachers to integrate technology?

How closely does the instruction within these schools align with the ISTET Standards?

How did teachers at these school describe their professional development, and how closely do these descriptions reflect the ten identified practices for effective professional development from the literature review?

Definition of Terms

Important terms in this literature review are digital immigrants, assimilation, highaccess, and learning environments. Along with the many changes in technology and culture that have taken place during the past two decades, there has also been a change in the nature of the student learning (Prensky, 2001). Prensky (2001) observed that the needs of today’s K12 students no longer match the educational system as it was originally designed. With the widespread exposure to technology and social media, today’s students “think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors” (p. 1), and that leads him to label current students digital natives . This group is comprised of students in kindergarten through college. At the time of this writing, the age of Prensky's digital natives would be from newborn to approximately 35. The rest (36 and older) were born outside the digital revolution are referred to as digital immigrants . Using this new world analogy, Prensky (2001) goes on to describe digital immigrants as having accents. The degree to which digital immigrants smooth their digital accents will ultimately ascertain their success in engaging with digital natives.


The word assimilation is defined from MerriamWebster as, “to take into the mind and thoroughly comprehend,” and also, “to absorb into the culture or mores of a population or group”

(Assimilation, n.d.). Prensky’s digital native/new world analogy embraces the idea that digital immigrants (regardless of age) must absorb, comprehend, and take into their mind the strategies and tools of our time in order to succeed with today’s students. From my experience as a K12 technology/professional development consultant, most schools refer to their technology initiatives as 1:1 or one student: one device. This term can put too much emphasis on the device, and not enough on student learning with guidance from a facilitator.

The term highaccess refers to classrooms where there is technology available to students and educators. This technology may take the form of laptops, tablets, or any other environment where Internet access is readily available to students. The term learning environment refers to any place or time when a student has potential access to some amount of knowledge and feedback from a facilitator. A highaccess learning environment is one in which a student has at least partial access to online digital curriculum and a facilitator. The definition is not limited by time or location.

Theoretical Framing

Transformational Learning Theory undergirds this study by making a case for adult learning that emphasizes the assimilation of new knowledge through reflection. It is, in fact, a form of adult learning theory that has been used to create a better understanding of professional development involving instructional technology (Dirkx, 1998). This theory was developed by

Mezirow (1991) and used to study learning practices within adults. Transformational Learning

Theory involves learning by reflecting and drawing upon one’s prior knowledge and experiences.


These experiences come to define adult learners, and affect how they assimilate new information they come in contact with as they learn. While a transformational learning experience can sometimes distort existing understanding, through critical reflection, it can also allow adults to reformulate their existing beliefs. In other words, an adult learner’s ability to learn new information is based on their personal level of experience and development within a profession

(Dirkx, 1998). An individual uses their experiences to process new information.

Transformational teaching in an educator’s classroom can be described as the creation of relationships between student, teachers, and knowledge to increase student learning (Slavich &

Zimbardo, 2012).

By respecting a learner’s experiences and giving them a chance to reflect critically on new information, transformational learning can take place. As applied to the topic of adult learners in a highaccess learning environment, one would expect that teacher professional development would be more effective when it meets educators at their specific level of need and or belief, and allows for reflection on the new knowledge. It would also provide clear methods for measuring growth and improvement (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).

The following chapter will explore differences in learner needs, learning spaces, and methods for creating and implementing professional development opportunities. Chapter Three will present three research questions focused on exploring the professional development methods used by two middle schools in Indiana who were recognized as “innovative” by the IDOE Office of eLearning. It will also describe the methods used to collect and analyze research data.

Chapter Four will explore how closely the instruction methods compares to internationallyrecognized standards created by the International Society for Technology in


Education (ISTE), and the ten identified practices for effective professional development from

Chapter Two.

16


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter explores the differences in learning styles between generations and identifies ten researchbased practices for effective professional development for educators. First, research concerning barriers to professional learning experiences involving technology integration is examined. Second, there is research on the impact of devices on teacher and student learning.

Next, three different learning spaces are described: onsite, online, and blended. Finally, the benefits and shortcomings of each learning space is shared, and a description of standards currently used to guide technology integration are provided.

Overcoming the Digital Divide

According to Prensky (2001), a digital divide has occurred due to a dissonance in the way that that digital natives and digital immigrants learn. Digital natives prefer to receive information quickly, multitask, read graphics before text, network, receive instant gratification, and play games. Digital immigrants, on the other side, generally prefer slowpaced, stepbystep instructions, one concept at a time, and a more serious tone to their learning.

In past years, Prensky’s ideas on digital natives have been considered controversial.

Most researchers have observed that while the younger generation generally has a greater understanding of technology, their age is not the most significant predictor of success with using it (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Salajan, Schonwetter, & Cleghorn, 2010; Gu, Zhu, & Guo,

2013; Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Vojt, 2011; Yang, & Yuen, 2010) . The digital divide has more to do with having access to the technology and less to do with a generational difference. A thorough definition of the digital divide includes, both, access and use of information technology,


(Srinuan & Bohlin, 2011) and references the fact that the divide can exist, “between individuals, regions, or countries” (p. 2), as well as students of different ethnicities or socioeconomic status

(Swain, 2003). However, the digital divide may not be as clearcut as it seems.

Ransdell, Kent, GaillardKenney, and Long (2011) performed a study with multiple generations of learners who took an online course in a graduate health science course. The digital immigrants were shown to have better knowledge application and deeper reading of websites required for the course than the other three groups including the digital natives. While this does not mean that digital immigrants are more skilled at using technology than their counterparts, it could mean that the study skills taught and valued by digital immigrants can translate well to the online learning environment.

In order to understand the needs of learners on either side of the divide, it is important to understand how their learning varies from each other. Yang and Yuen (2010) referred to a

“neomillennial learning style” consisting of: fluency in many types of media and communication, preference for collaboration and learning through multiple channels, active learning involving actual experiences/reflection, learning through nonlinear pathways, and the desire to seek and synthesize information themselves (p. 8). Thornburg (2007) reasoned that all learners (digital natives or immigrants) require four different spaces for authentic learning to take place: campfire (lecture), watering hole (discussion), cave (reflection), and life (authentic assessment/practical application).

Thornburg wrote that learning that did not touch all of these metaphorical learning spaces would result in low retention of new information. This model can be used to address the needs of digital native learners by incorporating modern tools into the learning spaces: campfire


(recorded minilecture), watering hole (online discussion boards, Skype, Google Hangouts, etc.), cave (blogging), and life (digital tools used to demonstrate authentic learning). Thornburg predicted that increased time spent defining and learning in these spaces would result in higher levels of mastery. Additionally, digital immigrants who were more comfortable with linear learning involving textbooks and tangible resources ( Yang & Yuen, 2010), may be moved towards digital native strategies and tools by using these existing learning spaces and reimagining them for new learning experiences.

Meeting digital immigrants at their current level of belief about technology integration and allowing time for reflection aligns with Transformational Learning Theory and the idea of,

“affecting change in a frame of reference” ( Mezirow, 1991, p.5). Experienced educators accumulate a large body of knowledge and experience from their lives and within their classroom. These experiences result in different assumptions or beliefs for how technology can be most effectively used for learning by digital immigrants and digital natives. Thus, the way administrators engage with teachers in learning experiences must be different.

A kindergarten student with limited life and education experience may assimilate new knowledge in a less complex fashion compared to a high school senior who has 12 years of schooling as a reference. A preservice teacher may attempt new strategies more easily since their frame of reference is heavy on knowledge, but light on experience. Veteran digital immigrant educators must receive professional development that respects his or her current level of belief, knowledge, and experience concerning the topic of study ( Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012) .

Although the distinction in learning styles between generations proposed by Prensky

(2001) has faced a great deal of criticism, the concept of a digital divide between those who use

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 20 instructional technology effectively and those who do not is valid. The digital divide is becoming an issue not just between students and teachers, but, more importantly, in districts, schools, and even grade levels (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Lawless and Pellegrino did not express concern that our students will one day have ubiquitous access to devices for learning.

They did express concern that students may not have ubiquitous access to a teacher who is capable of using technology to reinforce 21st century ideas. This is most likely to occur if the needs of adult learners are considered when professional development is planned and implemented (Mezirow, 1991).

With the widespread adoption of student technology within many districts, schools today are at a crossroads in their educational history (C. Dodson, personal communication, November

12, 2015). Decisionmakers need to understand what is causing the existing digital divide among teachers and contributing to unequal learning experiences for students in today’s classrooms (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Teachers and administrators need access to examples of districts who have successfully managed the transition and implemented technology that has enhanced the learning experience for students.

Characteristics of Effective Professional Development for Teachers

Gaible and Burns (2005) defined professional development for teachers as, “training which includes ongoing workshops, followup, study, reflections, observations, and assessment”

(p.16). Guskey (2002) expanded on this to include, “study groups, action research, collaborative planning, curriculum development, structured observations, peer coaching, mentoring, and so on” (p. 46). However it is defined, quality professional development is essential to any and all school reforms and movements (Martin, Strother, Beglau, Bates, Reitzes, & Culp, 2010; Reeves


& Pedulla, 2011; Hedberg, 2011).

Before considering specific research into professional development for instructional technology, there was a need to understand what research points to as effective practices or teacher professional development in general. From the literature reviewed on traditional professional and technologybased professional development, I identified ten common characteristics of effective professional development. This section of the chapter focuses on the seven specific to traditional professional development: contextualized, jobembedded, communitybased, time provided for reflection, focused content, beliefs are respected, and datadriven. Each of these areas is described with supporting research below.

Contextualized . The research stressed the importance of drawing a distinction between content for specific groups and information that is generalizable (Nuthall & AltonLee, 1993;

Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Opfer and Pedder (2011) referred to these different types of professional development as contextualized and decontextualized. Decontextualized training can be various tasks that occur between all educators such as: planning, mutual observation and feedback, and responding to a video of another educator teaching (Gaible & Burns, 2005).

Contextualized professional development consists of learning that can be applied in a small group setting to a specific subject area, grade level, or strategy with a particular student population. In a recent study, 58% of educators reported that they had not received adequate decontextualized training, with 81% reporting that they had never received contextualized professional development (Hutchinson, 2012). While both types of learning are equally important, it is clear that educators need more exposure to contextualized learning experiences.

Gaible and Burns (2005) divided professional development for teachers into three

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 22 categories: standardized, sitebased, and selfdirected. Hooker (2008) gave a detailed description of the characteristics of each. His purpose was to categorize the benefits and limitations of each type of professional development. Standardized professional development includes noncontextualized workshops and training sessions, and is described as having a cascade approach in which the information is generally “thrown” upon participants. Hooker said standardized professional development could be an effective when the intent of the training is to introduce new concepts, model, or build awareness. Limitations to standardized learning included the inability to differentiate, a lack of ongoing support, and low retention by participants.

Hooker (2008) described sitebased professional development as training that is gradual and involves working with an expert in a small group setting. This type of learning is contextualized and emphasizes collaboration and flexibility. Sitebased professional development is recommended when the training needs to move beyond basic awareness and introduction of concepts. This format would work well for developing instructional practices and strategies within specific subject areas and/or grade levels.

The third type of professional development Hooker describes is selfdirected.

Selfdirected learning works well for motivated teachers who are willing to seek out their own experiences and knowledge. Using this format involves allowing the participant to have individual time to research, reflect, and share their findings with other teachers within their contextualized group.

Overall, the most effective professional development for teachers will be differentiated in order to accommodate all preferences for learning and delivery among participants (Schrum &


Levin, 2013). Gaible and Burns (2005) and Guskey (2002) observed that sitebased and selfdirected professional development are more effective than the standardized workshop style currently popular among school districts (Sawchuck, 2010).

Sawchuck (2010) wrote of a culture of teachers exposed to extensive oneday workshop models of learning that, he observed, were not fully developed as ideas. Sawchuck (2010) argued that educators live in fear of whatever conference their superintendent may next be attending. Sawchuck said that superintendents may lack clear examples of successful implementation, and are thus prone to random acts of professional development. With an unclear focus and continuously shifting topics, educators come to view all forms of professional development as ineffective and a waste of time.

As viewed through the filter of Transformational Learning Theory (Dirkx, 1998), school leaders must respect the beliefs and experiences of veteran teachers around the ineffective, unfocused, and noncontextualized professional development from the past. Leaders will be able to transform learning more effectively by planning teacher learning experiences that are contextualized to the participant’s subject/level. This will allow the participant to reflect more productively on implementation because it addresses their current level of knowledge more specific to their own experiences (Opfer & Pedder, 2011).

JobEmbedded. While the standardized model of professional development can be quite useful for creating awareness, it will seldom result in changes in classroom practice or student performance (Gaible & Burns, 2005). In fact, when teacher learning occurs via a presentation with the intent of passing on general knowledge, it is very unlikely that it will yield a change in practice ( Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Plair (2008) observed that since technologycentered training

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 24 is delivered with the intent of building awareness about concepts or “getting the ball rolling,” the information is too general to get teachers started in their own classrooms. Teachers require contextualized resources, tools, and strategies they can transfer immediately to their classrooms.

Although there is a consensus within the research community that professional learning must now be continuous, social, and related to classroom practices, there is a disparity between research and actual professional learning offered by school administrators (Webster & Wright,

2009).

Webster & Wright (2009) stress the importance of teacher learning that is not based on a single training session, but built into the longterm expectations for the teachers. Gaible and

Burns (2005) referred to this as schoolcentered professional development. While there are multiple reasons for embracing this strategy, some of the most compelling reasons relate to basic knowledge assimilation. For example, in their research on student learning, Nuthall and

AltonLee (1993) coded different types of exposures to knowledge. They found information transferred via lecture or presentation format needed to be reviewed soon and often for retention.

If students were to go two or three days without “hearing” the information from their teacher, they would experience a loss of knowledge. In most cases it took three to four exposures to the same information with less than two or three days between each exposure for longterm learning to occur. When the student was able to relate the topic to other relevant information previously stored, the retention came sooner and without the usual amount of review required.

Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon, (2001) found that similar needs were present with adult learners. Their research concluded that teacher learning experiences must contain three instructional moments: time to absorb, time to discuss, and time to practice new knowledge

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS within their own classrooms. A change in teaching practice would not occur unless adequate time for all three moments was provided. It is a stark contrast to the frequent use of single session presentationstyle professional development often used in K12 school districts

(Sawchuck, 2010).

25

Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, and Loef (1989) conducted a study of elementary mathematics teachers to understand how the amount of time teachers were exposed to new learning was connected to student test scores on the new learning. Educators were given professional development specific to elementary mathematics, but there was a great variation in the number of training hours. One group participated in a fourweek summer workshop (80 hours total), and the other group had two, twohour workshops. The group found that students taught by teachers who had participated in the 80hour summer training outperformed the comparison group on a standardized mathematics test (compared to pretest scores). This reinforces Guskey’s (2000) findings that continuous jobembedded professional development that involves many hours over a long period of time is associated with effectiveness (Guskey,

2000).

CommunityBased. One of the key characteristics of standardized professional development is the generalized nature of the information (Gaible & Burns, 2005). The more related the community of learners are to each other, the greater chance of effective professional development experiences (Desimone, 2009). Efficacy increases as the community becomes more deeply related to their common learning. Whatever the efficacy of the training at a school level, it would be even more effective if educators from the same department learned collectively. When training becomes less general and more specific among likeminded

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 26 educators, it increases in efficacy (Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Wright, 2009). Professional development has been shown to be more effective in affecting teacher learning and teacher practice if teachers from the same school, department, or year level participate collectively.

This community concept is often seen in schools today through Professional Learning

Communities (PLCs). PLCs transform the culture of organizations through collaboration, shared mission/goals, persistence, and celebration (Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002). A PLC involves the entire staff reflecting upon their instructional practices, hopes for student outcomes, and monitoring learning to ensure growth. When community learning is in place, discussions become embedded within the entire school culture. Breaking from teacher isolation and focusing on highperforming teams with common goals builds capacity for individuals and the district/school.

Time Provided for Reflection. Reflection on information has long been a major tenet for education and leadership organizations, but it is also a component of Transformational

Learning Theory (Dirkx, 1998). The most common barrier to providing reflection within school professional development is the lack of time for training. This is why many schools rely so heavily on the standardized training practices (Gaible & Burns, 2005).

Tillema (2000) conducted a study on reflection and learning among studentteacher candidates. For the purposes of this study, Tillema referred to reflection as a discussion among a group of student teachers. In this study, candidates were divided into two groups. One group reflected on what they needed to know about teaching, and then practiced teaching within a classroom. The other group practiced within a classroom, and then reflected on their experiences. Tillema found that reflection after practice had a positive effect on changing

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 27 beliefs, whereas reflection prior to practice did not result in a change in these beliefs.

Tillema’s (2000) findings demonstrated that reflection alone does not affect beliefs, but reflection combined with learning can be powerful. Learning is most effective for educators when the training activities require them to apply the new learning in their classrooms, and then reflect with a small group on the experience (Opfer & Pedder, 2011).

Focused Content. Buckingham (2006) said, “ Clarity is the antidote to anxiety. If you do nothing else as a leader, be clear” (p. 8). Educators today are under a great deal of expectations and pressures due to standardized testing and evaluations. Along with the learning that goes along with these two pillars of modern schools, there are often additional professional development expectations. Desimone (2009) observed that focused content was the greatest predictor for effective professional development for teachers. Opfer & Pedder noticed that school administrators often spend more chasing new ideas time than preparing and streamlining existing content (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). In other words, while the teacher is still attempting to apply and internalize the concepts from new learning, many administrators are already exploring a different idea.

Opfer and Pedder (2011) suggested that maintaining a proper balance between innovation and detailed implementation would make the difference between an organization that learns and one that only attempts new things. School administrators must have a clear vision for what the professional development will look like once it is implemented. When considering this trait in the context of instructional technology, many administrators do not have a clear vision or model of possibility for effective student technology implementation (C. Dodson, personal communication, November 12, 2015).


Beliefs are Respected/Measure Progress. The research on the final two traits is so closely linked that it is easier to describe them in relation to each other. Opfer and Pedder (2011) found that it is significantly easier to change the beliefs and practices of preservice teachers than inservice teachers. Looking through the filter of Transformational Learning Theory, it is logical that preservice teachers have not had the same number of experiences within a jobembedded context as veteran teachers. This prior learning and experiences can often make the acquisition of new knowledge and changes to instructional practice more difficult for experienced educators

(Dirkx, 1998).

In order to effectively change a teacher’s practice within his/her own classroom, leaders will first have to change the teacher’s belief towards making that change (Raths, 2001; Opfer &

Pedder, 2011). Opfer and Pedder (2011) went one step further and observed that teachers are more likely to seek learning opportunities that match their beliefs. Desimone (2009) referred to this as coherence. The goal of coherence is to match teacher beliefs with the information presented as part of the new learning experience. The knowledge teachers gain within this type of training can then move them from their current beliefs and affect instructional practices.

Wheatley (2002) observed that a teacher’s selfefficacy has an effect on student outcomes. Wheatley suggested teacher professional development needs to initially match educator belief, but then create a disruption or cognitive dissonance in order to affect their feeling of efficacy . Bandura (1994) described selfefficacy as how strongly people felt that they were capable of influencing events that affected them. People who are confident in their abilities approach difficult tasks as challenges and can experience intrinsic motivation to increase interest and engagement in activities. However, if the dissonance is too great, it can result in a negative

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 29 attitude and lack of motivation in the individual.

In their study, Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) reviewed a history of teacher training models that include three main areas: teacher beliefs, teacher practices, and student learning.

They noted that educational programs have historically attempted to begin with belief change as a way of affecting practices to, ultimately, increase student learning. Opfer and Pedder (2011), upon reflecting on the literature, said that, instead, the belief/practice/student learning process is reciprocal and contingent upon each area. In addition, they observed that the process can begin in any one area, affect the following corresponding area, and continue the learning process in a positive manner. Below is a graphic (Figure 1) to assist with visualizing this concept.

Figure. 1. A model of professional growth

A teacher who has a learning experience can enter Figure 1 in any of the three areas

(beliefs, practices, or student learning), but for longterm learning to occur, the professional

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 30 learning experience must result in a change in all three areas (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). In order to measure the effect on student learning, teachers must have a method for collecting and operationalizing data that they find meaningful. When teacher beliefs affect practices and practices affect student learning, then the professional growth is not just circular. The positive impact on student learning once again affects the new teacher beliefs, and this process works as a helix of continuous professional growth for the educator.

These seven identified traits of effective professional development all correspond to the concepts within Transformational Learning Theory. Changing the framework for an experienced educator is a difficult task. While school leaders must consider beliefs/practices and measure student learning related to new learning, they must also prepare to integrate the development throughout the culture of the building. This means focusing training offerings, embedding the professional development outcomes within teachers’ classrooms, building communities with shared beliefs through contextualized training, allowing time for reflection, and measuring the related student learning.

Professional Development Specific to Technology Integration

Technology integration as a strategy for teaching and learning has the potential to affect all activities in the classroom in a positive manner (C. Dodson, personal communication,

November 12, 2015). It is important to understand that with a new and evolving topic such as instructional technology, there may never truly be best practices, “Only good practices that change frequently” (Prensky, 2012, p. 3). Prensky (2012) wrote that the best strategy is for teachers to constantly think and consider new ways devices may be used to amplify the student learning experience. It many ways, this new world requires us to always be in beta (testing

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 31 phase). The days of laminating lessons plans are over.

Effective Technology Professional Development. There were seven practices identified so far that that research revealed to have a positive effective for professional development. In addition to these seven practices, there are three additional practices specific to instructional technology professional development. Teachers learn best when there is tiered training

(beginner, middle, expert) with different modes of delivery (Schrum & Levin, 2013). It is also important to keep a focus on student learning instead of putting too much emphasis on the device

(Opfer & Pedder, 2011).

Hutchinson (2012) involved 1441 literacy teachers in the United States in a mixed methods study designed to identify characteristics that would contribute to effective professional development for integrating technology into instruction. This study was conducted using a survey with 69 Likert Scale questions, 11 multiple choice items, and eight openended responses.

He identified four effective characteristics for technology integration training: time to explore/prepare for instruction, access to equipment before/after training, continuous access to knowledge/knowledgeable trainers, and ongoing support.

These identified characteristics of effective integration training are similar to those identified in the previous section. Time to prepare and explore are aspects of contextualized, focused, and reflective training, access to equipment is an example of jobembedded training, and continuous access to knowledgeable trainers and ongoing support is an example of how a community can support the professional development.

In Hutchinson’s (2012) study, participants who identified time to explore/prepare for instruction as a characteristic, stated that they felt their learning experience would benefit from

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 32 more time to practice concepts between sessions and then the opportunity to discuss as a small group. They also requested longer, more indepth sessions instead of short workshops.

Regarding their access to equipment, 43.2% of participants argued that they needed the opportunity to manipulate the device during training instead of just visual demonstrations.

The majority of the teachers in this study (56.8%) reported that they needed better models of possibility for what integration should look like in a classroom. Hutchinson (2012) found that having access to trainers who can give specific details for scaffolding knowledge and examples of application of concepts increased the efficacy of the learning experience. In fact, 43.2% of educators identified ongoing support following training as a need, and also identified online tutorials, multiple exposures, and a combination of individual and small groups as specific ideas for improving the process. This information is consistent with the practices identified in the previous section and Transformational Learning Theory. This suggests that educators need time allocated to incorporate and reflect upon new knowledge before assimilating it into their existing beliefs and experiences (Webster & Wright, 2009; Gable & Burns, 2005).

Barriers to Technology Integration Professional Development. A great deal of the literature older than 10 years ago referred to access and cost of technology as the greatest obstacles to successful integration. With recent advances in technology and access to lowcost or free software, this has become less of an issue for schools. More recently, there were six general barriers identified for educators striving to integrate technology into their classrooms: resources, institutional knowledge, subject culture, attitudes and beliefs, knowledge and skills, and assessment (Hew & Brush, 2007).

Simply having resources within a highaccess classroom is not an indicator there will be

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 33 successful integration ( O’Brien & Scharber, 2010). On the other hand, open access to training alone is not a predictor of successful implementation (Ertmer & OttenbreitLeftwich, 2010).

Only through respecting beliefs and teaching practical use of the device will schools have the greatest impact on the efficacy of technology integration in classrooms, and, in turn, on student learning (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Kadijevich (2012) observed that there are three different knowledge types within his Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (or TPCK) model: content knowledge to teach, pedagogical knowledge to apply, and technology knowledge to empower the other two (p. 28).

Kadijevich observed the main reason teachers do not implement technology in their classrooms is due to a lack of domain knowledge in technology. Since educators today must have knowledge in all three areas to be effective, schools must make handson learning, experimentation, access to equipment, and ongoing support priorities in any professional development planning (Swain & Pearson, 2003).

Wood, Mueller, Willoughby, Specht, and Deyoung, (2005) suggested that teachers must have constant opportunities and an open environment to voice concerns, experiences, and gaps in their learning. They conducted a study involving 54 elementary and secondary school teachers to gather data on possible obstructions. Barriers they observed were support issues (access to quality training), human resources (insufficient amount of technology support), material resources (access to devices), training and professional development (offerings), and administrative and parental support. When considering all of these barriers, the greatest problems were access to a device and quality training.

Impact of Devices. When weighing the importance of access to a device and quality

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 34 training, it is worth noting a key study performed by Fairlie and Robinson (2013) for the

National Bureau of Economic Research. In this study, 1123 students from 6th to 10th grade took part in a study to determine the influence of a device on student learning. Half of these students were given computers to take home for the year, and the other half were not. Neither the students nor the teachers were given any form of training. At the end of the school year, they observed that having a device had no effect on student grades, test scores, credits, attendance, or discipline. The presence of a device without training did not influence student learning. Access to technology is important, but it is not the sole differentiating factor. It is a necessary condition, of course, for increased instructional technology use in classrooms, but, alone, it is insufficient.

Responding to these highaccess/lowuse environments, Prensky (2012) suggested administrators encourage teachers to focus on innovation before training them on the devices.

His reasoning was that a school that purchased the student devices, and then attempted to find uses would have outdated devices by the time the teachers began using them effectively.

Prensky suggested a step in the process called “imagucation” (p. 2). Imagucation involves taking the last few moments of every class period a year before device implementation to have a conversation with students about what they could have done differently to increase student learning if all participants had personal devices. Prensky suggested that having teachers and students go through this thought process could be more educational than actually using the devices during the first year of implementing student devices.

Online Professional Development. While a great deal of research on general professional development can be applied to the context of training specifically for instructional technology, there is a lack of research into one aspect in use today. The use of online

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 35 professional development for educators (Desimone, 2009) is one that is gaining popularity, but the efficacy is yet to determined. Russell, Carey, Kleiman, and Venable, (2009) performed a study in which they compared the effects of facetoface learning with online learning for a group of mathematics teachers. While both formats showed positive outcomes, teachers who had taken the online professional development were more likely to participate in further training due to the asynchronous (and convenient) nature of the learning. Reeves and Pedulla (2011) identified multiple factors that maximized satisfaction among the online participants: number of hours of the training, quality feedback from the facilitator, rigorous online discussion among participants, clarity of participant expectations, availability of technical support, clear facilitator expectations, quality of course content, and friendliness of the online learning management system.

Blended Professional Development. Another aspect of professional development specific to the context of technology integration is blended learning. B lended professional development can be defined as a combination of online and facetoface instruction where learners are connected (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Garrison and Kanuka stated that this combination of onsite and online instruction resulted in a transformation in teaching practices.

The blended combination of instruction was especially powerful because participants reaped the benefits of the connection they had with a community of learners untethered by location. The energy and spontaneous nature of facetoface interaction combined with the reflection and discussion potential of online learning had the potential to multiply the learning experiences beyond what was possible within only one learning environment.

Owston and Wideman (2008) performed a twoyear study involving mathematics,

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 36 science, and technology teachers who experienced professional development in a blended learning environment. During the online portion, educators were asked to respond to posted articles within a class discussion, and post reflective journal entries every two weeks. They concluded that the blended environment had a positive effect on teacher attitude and showed a significant increase in content knowledge. In some cases, there was a transformation of classroom practice that could be attributed to the blended learning experience.

SelfDirected Learning Models. As mentioned previously, Gaible and Burns (2005) identified professional development as having three different modes: standardized, sitebased, and selfdirected. Schrum and Levin (2013) and Hedberg (2011) found that some of the most successful schools and districts were not only differentiating by using all three of these modes.

They were also by dividing training into levels (beginner, intermediate, advanced) and learning style (online, onsite, small group, oneonone). It was observed that the schools that took the time to survey and involve staff in the planning and execution of learning options were the ones who experienced the most success with teacher satisfaction (Schrum & Levin, 2013). Hedberg

(2011) reported that teachers involved with professional development of this type showed evidence of greater “personal efficiency, pedagogy, practice, increased awareness of individual student learning needs, and increased focus on interaction for students” (p. 1415).

Since many school environments have not provided teacher training that has been successful in assisting educators in implementing technology integration (Lawless & Pellegrino,

2007), some teachers have found that they are able to increase their capacity by using technology to teach themselves, share knowledge, and embrace a leadership role within their schools

(Schrum & Levin, 2013). Teachers who used social media tools, such as Twitter, were found to

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 37 be more willing to attempt implementation first, and often fulfilled a crucial role in the learning environments by bringing in new ideas from educators outside the school district (Forte, 2012).

Wright (2009) argued that Twitter was an obvious tool for educators since it allowed them to be selfdirected and ultracontextualized using education/subject specific hashtags.

1

Additionally,

Wright (2009) stated that the selfdirected nature of Twitter took away a possible stigma of the professional development offerings suggesting that the teacher had a deficiency and needed to be

“developed.” Encouraging Twitter for contextualized learning allowed an educator to be selfdirected as they maintained an updated body of knowledge and strategies.

Technology Training and Transformational Learning Theory

Much of the research covered in this section was consistent with the research shared on

Transformational Learning Theory. While it could be argued that schools have been using ineffective practices for engaging educators in learning experiences for many years (Sawchuck,

2010), the need for highquality training is great if teachers are going to increase engagement and efficacy through the use of technology (C. Dodson, personal communication, November 12,

2015). The changing landscape and culture of teaching has resulted in highaccess, but lowuse learning environments where students have equal access to technology, but unequal access to quality instruction ( Wood, Mueller, Willoughby, Specht, & Deyoung, 2005) . This makes it even more important for school leaders to offer professional learning experiences that will respect their teachers’ learning style, beliefs, and level of need (Opfer & Pedder, 2011).

It is also consistent with Transformational Learning Theory that schools who give educators the opportunity to reflect and participate in surveys are the most successful (Schrum &

1 On Twitter, a hashtag begins with a #, and is a method for grouping ideas so that they are searchable.


Levin, 2013) . Prensky’s (2012) Imagucation exercise is particularly applicable to this theory by allowing the educator to draw upon his or her prior experiences each day and spend time projecting and speculating forward as to how their practice will change. Even more connections can be made between this theory and the research on teacher training within blended learning environments. For example, when teachers were asked to identify and share articles with colleagues instead of simply reading the materials assigned by their instructor, it allowed the educators to find articles they personally identified as useful within the overall topic (Garrison &

Kanuka, 2004).

Standards and Measurement of Professional Development

While researchers have generally agreed on what effective professional development looks like, it has proven much more difficult to measure the efficacy and overall impact (Martin,

Strother, Beglau, Bates, Reitzes, & Culp, 2010). Some researchers have focused their efforts specifically on investigating effective implementation of instructionaltechnology professional development (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). In their review, Lawless and Pellegrino recommended a threephase approach to designing evaluations that look at the quality and effectiveness of these learning experiences. They recommended an examination of the overall professional development design to help develop a systematic understanding of its particular characteristics. They also suggested examining the relationship between program characteristics and teacher outcomes, and also the effects on teachers and students. They felt that looking at these three aspects could provide a logical progression of the potential impact of the training and allow for “an examination of how variation among key characteristics at one level affects variation in important outcomes at the next level” (p. 602). Basically, having clear standards for

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 39 teacher outcomes allowed participants to measure their individual growth and progress.

The International Society for Technology in Education (2014) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to assist teachers and educational leaders in creating powerful connections among all learners. Through partnerships with over 100,000 educators all over the world, ISTE has created the definitive standards for learners, teachers, leaders, and coaches.

ISTE has not formally published their process for determining standards (C. Sykora, personal communication, July 2, 2014). It is based on a process developed by the Council for the

Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), formerly NCATE. ISTE is one of 23 specialized professional organizations (including NCTM, NCTE, NAYEC and others) that belong to CAEP.

CAEP uses their standards to nationally recognize teacher preparation programs. The process includes writing teams made up of educators, learning scientists, assessment specialists, NGOs, government agencies, and other subject matter experts to draft standards and put them out for public comment. ISTE chooses to iterate drafts as they are refined based on comments and feedback. The process takes one year for each set of standards. Because innovations in technology happen so quickly, ISTE also calls on those who anticipate what the needs and skills will be in the future. The standards are aspirational, and focus on how technology supports instruction and learning.

The SAMR model is another standard widely used by schools today when measuring their professional development outcomes (Romrell, Kidder, & Wood, 2014). The SAMR model provides a framework that allows for the evaluation of student and teacher use of technology

(Puentedura, 2013). Puentedura identified four levels for technology integration: substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition. When technology was used to perform the same

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 40 task that was already possible without technology, Puentedura referred to this as substitution.

The highest level, redefinition, was when learners or teachers were able to perform tasks that previously could not be done. Using the SAMR level, Puentedura said that teachers and students could measure when they were enhancing teaching and learning (substitution and augmentation levels), and when they were transforming teaching and learning (modification and redefinition levels).

Conclusion

The research shows that there is a gap between the needs of teachers as adult learners and the professional development that they are receiving (Sawchuck, 2010). Within the literature review, there were seven practices identified that are most effective for professional development. Teacher training should be contextualized and jobembedded with time provided for reflection (Tillema, 2000). There should also be a community approach that respects teacher beliefs and works to move them from their current level (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). This can be achieved by surveying staff, focusing content, and ensuring there are methods in place to measure progress and make decisions based on data. In addition to these seven practices, there are three additional practices specific to instructional technology professional development.

Teachers learn best when there is tiered training (beginner, middle, expert) with different modes of delivery (Schrum & Levin, 2013). It is also important to keep a focus on student learning instead of putting too much emphasis on the device (Opfer & Pedder, 2011).

With technology continuously expanding its role in our society, and the existing divide among skillsets of teachers (Prensky, 2012), it is imperative that the divide between teachers is bridged so that all students have access to a teacher capable of using technology effectively to

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 41 amplify student learning (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). With prominent districts, such as Los

Angeles Unified School District (Herald, 2014) failing to find an effective plan for implementation, it is clear that school leaders need more guidance. Furthermore, case studies of schools who have effectively implemented technology and trained teachers can offer strong models of possibility. Focusing on standards such as those from the International Society for

Technology in Education (2014) and SAMR can give teachers a clear application for their skills.

These standards can also provide educators a method for measuring growth, and having a true impact on student learning in the the classroom.

The research methods described in the following chapter addresses the gap in teacher technology skills through a mixed methods case study of two districts awarded a top level grant from the state Indiana Department of Education’s Office of eLearning. This study discusses the methods used by these successful districts and compares these methods to the research from

Chapter Two. This information provides data and models of possibility other districts can use to

make decisions regarding their ability to plan, expand, and measure the introduction of classroom technology to improve student learning and engagement.


CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this section, the specifics of the method for the study are expanded and detailed to provide an understanding of the procedures, instruments, sample, and the process of data collection and analysis. This case study used mixed methods because it required, both, quantitative and qualitative data in order to fully answer the research questions. This chapter also establishes validity and reliability for the research tools used (survey and observation tool) to gather information from both school districts.

R

2

R

3


R

1

How did two Indiana school districts that won the IDOE Innovation and Learning Grant prepare their middle school teachers to integrate technology?

How closely does the instruction within these schools align with the ISTET Standards?

How did teachers at these school describe their professional development, and how closely do these descriptions reflect the ten identified characteristics of effective professional development from Chapter Two?

Research Design

This mixed method case study explored the professional development offerings from schools who were the recipients of the Innovation and Learning Grant in the state of Indiana.

The goal was to investigate the topic of professional learning and instructional technology using a defined set of procedures (Yin, 2014). The research process involved exploring the relationship between the professional learning methods used by these districts and the ten practices identified in the literature review.


The alignment of instructional practices with the ISTET standards allowed for a common comparison for the success of the teacher preparation. For example, it could be argued that a school with a closer alignment to the ISTET standards than another would likely have more effective professional development for teachers. Convergent parallel mixed methods were used to merge the data from the survey and classroom observations (quantitative) with the focus group data (qualitative) during the interpretation of the results (Creswell, 2014).

The rationale for pursuing a case study came from the criteria set forth by Yin (2014).

The work is attempting to explain how and why these districts were able to successfully implement instructional technology and this qualifies as a “social phenomenon.” Additionally, the research questions required an indepth examination a process that Yin (2014) identified as a justification for a case study. Second, there were a series of decisions made by these districts, and the study sought to understand why? and how? they were made. Third, there are multiple variables involved in the process of integrating technology, and it was necessary to triangulate data from multiple sources within each district.

This case study has an embedded multiplecase design (Yin, 2014) in that there are two districts examined with three different units of analysis (survey, classroom observation tool, and focus groups questions). The results from these units of analysis were treated separately and not combined into one collective pool of data for analysis. The logic for this multiplecase study was to predict comparable results (literal replication) between the districts.

Description of the Sample

The Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) Office of eLearning typically awards

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 44 grants based on three different levels. There are Innovation and Planning grants to allow schools to begin the process of determining their current levels of instruction and infrastructure, and provide them the resources to create a strategic plan for increased technology integration in their classrooms. The middle level grant is the Digital Learning Grant that awards schools with excellent technology integration plans the resources to begin a pilot or rollout of student devices.

Districts who are deemed to be at the highest level of instructional technology integration have the chance to receive the Imagining and Creating eLearning grant. This grant provided funding for these forwardthinking schools to provide models of possibility to other districts in the areas of digital content, customized learning, and flexible scheduling. In 2013, over 50 districts applied for this grant through an online application. Twentyfive districts were chosen to travel to the IDOE Office of eLearning to give a 10minute pitch. There were 16 districts chosen for this grant: digital content

2

(nine), customized learning (three), flexible scheduling

(four).

Two districts who received the Innovation and Learning Grant from the IDOE Office of eLearning in the area of digital content were chosen for this study. Rogers Middle School is located in Indiana and had 2705 students enrolled in 20132014. The district it belongs to has four elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school. According to the IDOE Compass website, 50.6% of students are in the free and reduced lunch population, and 94.5% of students are white. There are 15.2% of students who are in special education programs. Student

2 Digital content winners curated digital curriculum by standard for other schools to use. Customized learning winners piloted strategies for using technology to create an individualized learning experience for students. Flexible scheduling winners piloted the concept of eLearning on snow days.

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 45 achievement scores have shown an increase over the past four years, with 70.9% of students passing ISTEP in the 20122013 school year.

Stark Middle School is located 24 miles from Rogers Middle School. This district served

3003 students in 20132013 (see Table 3.1). The school district it is part of has four elementary schools, a junior high, and a high school. According to the IDOE Compass website, 55.1% of

Stark Middle School students are on free and reduced lunch, and 89.8% report themselves as white. There are 14.7% of students who are in special education programs. Student achievement scores have shown a decrease the past three years with 68.4% of students passing in the

20122013 school year. The graduation rate has steadily increased over the past four years with

92.6% of students graduating in 20122013. These two school districts have similar demographics among the population they serve. However, the biggest difference is that the district to which Stark Middle School belongs graduates almost 18% more students per year.

This study was focused on the middle schools for both districts because this is where the

technology integration was focused initially. Both middle schools had 1:1 programs for multiple years, and the success of these programs is what helped them draw attention from the IDOE

Office of eLearning.


Table 3.1

Comparison of District Demographics

Enrollment (20132014)

Rogers Middle School

2705

Free and Reduced Population

(20132014)

50.6%

Ethnic Background (20132014) 94.5% white

Special Education (20132014)

% Passing ISTEP (20122013)

15.2%

70.9%

The Instruments

Stark Middle School

3003

55.1%

89.8% white

14.7%

68.4%

The FiveStar ISTET Survey and Classroom Observational Tool were designed to gather information about teachers' current levels of technology integration according to each of the five

ISTET standards. The focus group questions were created to elicit information about each of the ten identified practices for effective professional development from the literature review, and further information on the ISTET Standards. These three instruments were tested for content validity by an expert panel consisting of Brad Fischer, Melissa Pogue, and Lisa Cutshall.

Brad Fischer was the Director of Information Services at Danville Community Schools in

Danville, IN for 15 years. Brad has a bachelor’s degree in mathematics education from Ball

State University and a Master’s in educational technology from Purdue University. He has previously served on the board of the Hoosier Educational Computer Coordinators (HECC), the

Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) eLearning Leadership Cadre, the Indiana CTO

Council, and has presented at several state and national conferences.


Lisa Cutshall was the Director of eLearning at Madison Consolidated Schools in

Madison, IN. She holds Masters Degrees in K8 Curriculum as well as Educational Technology.

Lisa taught middle school science for 10 years in both Indiana and Tennessee. She has served as a member of the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) eLearning Leadership Cadre and has been honored with several awards for outstanding teaching and technology leadership, including the HECC Technology Coordinator of the Year.

Melissa Pogue was a middle school principal at the Richland Bean Blossom school district in Elletsville, IN. She led her school to becoming a 1:1 learning environment. In 2008,

Melissa was named the Monroe County Educator of the Year, and in 2012 she was the Indiana

District 9 Principal of the Year.

Survey. The FiveStar ISTET survey instrument (Appendix A) was tested to assure it provided reliability and validity. The expert panel discussed and clarified the questions in the survey to improve content validity. The survey was piloted with 35 teachers, and the Alpha

Reliability was .824 leading the expert panel to determine that internal consistency for all survey questions was present.

Classroom Observation Tool. The FiveStar ISTET Classroom Observation Tool

(Appendix B) was discussed and revised by the expert panel to improve content validity and find if the observation tool elicited responses that corresponded with the intended ISTE Standard.

The tool was revised and piloted by the expert panel on three different occasions. The expert panel also observed three classrooms together and compared their observations. They found that there was consistency in their responses across all observation areas. The reliability of the

3 FiveStar Technology Solutions is an educational technology company that operates primarily in the state of

Indiana.

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 48 classroom observation tool was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha. This test determined there was good agreement (.771) and the observation areas have internal consistency.

Focus Group Questions. The focus group questions (Appendix C) were discussed and revised by the expert panel on three different occasions to explore if they elicited responses consistent with the associated ISTE Standard and the ten practices identified in the literature review. The expert panel found that there was content validity, and the questions were likely to provide relevant information.

Data Collection

Data for the research questions R

1

and R

3 were collected using focus group questions for administrators and teachers. Administrators at each school choose the focus groups, and they were asked to provide a “mix” of opinions about the use of technology within the building. In order to ensure that focus group members respond as honestly as possible, the two administrator and teachers focus groups were not integrated.

The middle school principals were contacted two weeks before the first on site visit and ask them to schedule the survey, classroom observation, and focus groups when it is most convenient. They were asked to choose one day for focus groups that was at least one week after the classroom observations. This allowed time to examine the data from the survey and classroom observations in case there were additional questions that needed to be asked. The four focus group sessions occurred in the teacher lounges of the two schools. Questions and responses were entered into a Google Doc. Interviews were recorded using an iPhone so they could be transcribed. Focus group questions were a semiscripted interview protocol (Appendix

C).


Data collection for research question (R

2

) required the use of the FiveStar ISTET

Survey and FiveStar ISTET Observation Tool. The ISTET Survey was given using Qualtrics.

The link was be emailed to the superintendents the week before the classroom observations were scheduled to take place. Superintendents were notified about the number of participant responses 48 hours before the first scheduled classroom observation day so they could send additional communication to increase the number of respondents.

All core curriculum teachers who agreed to participate were observed (Language Arts,

Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies). Each observation took from five to 10 minutes to complete. Observation data were collected on an iPad using a cloudbased software called Pivot.

Data Analysis

The sample size for this research was small (approximately 60 surveys and observations), however, this was a case study focused on investigating a phenomenon, and the purpose was not to generalize results. The first research questions (R

1

) was qualitative and required indepth interviews and observations in order to collect and then analyze data inductively using grounded theory (Patton, 2002). Since it was important to understand the cause of and decisions leading to the changes within the district, interviews with the focus groups (administrators and teachers) provided important information from the viewpoints of all stakeholders. While some of the qualitative data collection came about through unofficial exploratory conversations, there were

Focus Group Questions coded by the ISTET Standards that were used as well (Appendix C).

The third research question (R

3

) involved using inductive methods. The focus group questions/answers were transcribed and then placed into preexisting codes by the expert panel

(Miles & Huberman, 1984) according to the five ISTET standards, and then the ten identified

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 50 traits for effective professional development identified in Chapter Two (Contextualized CT,

Embed in Job EJ, Build Communities BC, Reflection RF, Focus Content FC, Respect

Beliefs RB, Use Data UD). Although preexisting codes were used with the data, there was consideration for deductive coding and other phenomenon that may have not been present within the ISTET Standards or the research. Care was given to allow codes to become subcodes, decay, or be replaced by more relevant codes (Miles & Huberman, 1984).

For the second research question (R

2

), the FiveStar ISTET Survey and FiveStar

ISTET Classroom Observation results were examined. The current level for each school (by

ISTE standard) was found by calculating a mean score for each school by ISTET standard, years of experience, subject area, and grade level. With the observation data, the current level was determined by calculating the percent of classrooms where evidence of each ISTE standard was observed. The survey and observation data (along with the focus group results) were analyzed for each school/ISTET Standard individually, comparatively, and then as a single dataset.

The Researcher’s Role

It is important to note I was an administrator at Rogers Middle School leading up to and during the first year of technology implementation. I contributed a great deal of time to the planning of the initiative, and also performed the majority of the training in the year leading up to the implementation. This study was conducted three years after I left the district. Efforts were made to ensure the data collection was not influenced by this background knowledge or the relationships from the previous position. For example, the classroom observation and focus group data was based only on what was shared or observed during the allotted times. Previous knowledge about the implementation process for the school or the teaching methods were not

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 51 included in the research. During the data analysis, the data were labeled Sample School One and

Sample School Two by a member of the expert panel so there was not any judgement included in the findings. The coding of the transcripts for research questions two and three were also coded

by the expert panel.


CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

In this chapter, the survey, observation, and focus groups data from Rogers Middle

School and Stark Middle School were examined individually and then in comparison. This chapter also includes findings from the focus group interviews specific to the ten traits for effective professional development identified in Chapter Two (R

3

).

These are comparative cases, and the purpose was to report on the current state of instructional technology implementation within each school individually, shed some light on how these two schools prepared their teachers to integrate technology (R

2

), and report any findings gained through a comparison. There are themes and patterns that emerged around the digital divide and fidelity of implementation for each group of teachers, and the most effective practices for introducing new tools, and strategies specific to technology integration.

Rogers Middle School

Rogers Middle School began implementing student devices in the spring of 2011 when they secured a grant from the IDOE Office of eLearning to purchase devices for 8th grade students. The grant included $150,000 to fund Macbook laptops for students and staff, and

$50,000 for professional development for middle school staff. The district purchased additional devices for 9th graders and high school teachers. The grant was written with five goals in mind: increase student engagement, increase individual learning opportunities, increase 21st century skill development of students and staff, increase student achievement, and decrease the digital divide in the community.


One of the first decisions made by the middle school was to adopt a learning management system called My Big Campus. The majority of professional development was focused on My

Big Campus, and teachers used the software to create classroom groups, share digital curriculum, give assessments, and communicate with students. During this period, the district also purchased a software called Build Your Own Curriculum to serve as a districtwide warehouse of K12 units, objectives, and learning targets. The district delivered an intense professional development program that included a summer boot camp, Technology Talks, and halfday work sessions during 2011.

The 1:1 initiative officially launched at the beginning of the 20112012 school year for all

8th and 9th graders. The professional development was expanded in 2012 to include paid time for teachers to create digital curriculum, a threeday training conference, a weekly summer dropin day, and additional Tuesday morning Technology Talks. The administrators created a rubric they called a Digital Initiative Teacher Expectations Rubric. This rubric was similar to a teacher evaluation rubric, and outlined levels of performance in Digital Tools, Digital Content,

Social Engagement, Assessment, and Classroom Management.

During this time, all sixth grade science teachers were using digital resources (even without students devices) and 6th and 7th grade ELA and Mathematics teachers piloted the software as well. The middle school saw a rise in attendance and pass rates for core classes, and a decrease (47%) in detentions related to students being unprepared for instruction during this school year compared to the 20102011 school year.

At the end of the 20112012 school year, the administrators and technical staff decided that iPads would be a lower cost and acceptable option for middle school students. The

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 54 following year, the 8th grade MacBooks were sent to the high school, and all middle school students (sixth through eighth grade) started the 20122013 school year with an individual iPad for use at school and at home. At this time, the district added a Director of eLearning position to oversee the vision for professional development and implementation. They replaced a retiring media center specialist with a teacher who worked as an instructional coach. These positions allowed for more professional development opportunities before, during, and after school.

Comparative data were collected via teacher survey, classroom observation, and focus groups. The findings are examined below by ISTET Standard. The first four ISTET standards are related to instructional moments, but ISTET Standard Five covers the professional development opportunities. In this study the first four standards are examined as outputs or the results of what has occurred within ISTET Standard Five. This explains why ISTET Standard

Five is discussed before the others.

The aggregated results are displayed in Table 4.1. The three other tables are a

comparison of means for grade level (Table 4.2), years of experience (Table 4.3), and subject area (Table 4.4) by each ISTET Standard.


Table 4.1

55

Rogers Middle School Survey/Observation Data by ISTET Standard

ISTE Standard One

Students learning through small or whole group discussions and/or Socratic seminars

Students opportunities to collaborate with peers

Students opportunities for creativity or innovation when demonstrating learning

ISTE Standard Two

Majority of students using for learning

Students use of Google Apps for Education

Student use of a learning management system

Student use of software to differentiate learning in my classroom.

Teacher use of data from formative and summative assessments to customize learning

ISTE Standard Three

Technology used for instruction.

Use of digital tools and resources to communicate with parents

Use of resources or research from the internet

(nontextbook) for instruction

ISTE Standard Four

Instruction on digital information and technology safety

Instruction on responsible social interaction using technology

Instruction on copyright laws, intellectual property, and the correct documentation of sources

Evidence of expectations for responsible use of technology/netiquette

5

0

1 2

( n =19)

3

% % %

5

6

25

6

5

24

5

5

21

33

11

21

11

0

13

35

5

29

0

63

42

50

26

16

16 37 21

5

11 32 11

6

13

24

16

18

26

16

21

11

4 5

% %

Observation

( n =17)

1

%

53

58

21

22

19

24

26

12

42

11

11

6

5

5

5

21 58

37 11

67

31

12

47

18

26

5

5

0

35

13

25

76

24

47

12

25

59

6

94

.

.

. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

(continued)

6

4 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=undecided, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree


Table 4.1 Rogers Middle School Survey/Observation Data by ISTET Standard (continued)

ISTE Standard Five

1 2 3 4 5

Discussion of teaching methods and student learning with other professionals outside of my district in a virtual environment

53 26 5 16 0

Following current research related to educational technology. 4

Vision of effective technology 0

Ability to help others develop technology skills 5

Promotion of ability to help others develop technology skills 5

Contribution to the effectiveness of technology integration 5

53

0

32

16

11

74

16 21 37

47 5 37

0 16 74

0

11

21

5

5

.

.

.

.

.

.

56


Table 4.2

Rogers Middle School Grade Level Comparison of Means

Grade

Level

Sixth

( n =6)

ISTET 1

M 3.39

ISTET 2

4.08

ISTET 3

3.69

ISTET 4 ISTET 5

2.72

3.08

.80

.60

.93

.57

Seventh

( n =8)

SD .68

M 3.29

Eighth

( n =5)

SD .45

3.33

1.07

4.08

.71

2.13

.69

3.33

.62

Total

( n =19)

M 2.73

SD 1.21

M 3.18

SD .78

3.32

.90

3.56

.97

2.60

1.01

3.57

.95

1.93

.64

2.26

.79

2.63

.57

3.07

.63

Overall

3.39

.72

3.23

.71

2.64

.87

3.13

.82

57


Table 4.3

Rogers Middle School Years of Experience Comparison of Means

Experience ISTET 1

12 years

(n =0)

.

35 years

(n =1)

M 3.33

SD .

610 years

(n =3)

M 3.00

SD 1.20

1120 years

(n =10)

.

ISTET 2

4.60

.

4.10

.79

.

ISTET 3

5.00

.

3.33

.88

.

ISTET 4

3.67

.

2.33

1.20

.

ISTET 5

4.33

.

3.06

.25

M 3.87

SD .65

2130 years

(n =3)

M 3.89

SD .38

31+ years

(n =2)

M

3.83

SD .71

Total n =19

M 3.18

SD .78

2.98

.91

3.93

.12

4.60

.57

3.56

.97

3.70

.71

3.44

.38

2.75

2.47

3.57

.95

2.03

.46

2.56

1.26

2.17

.71

2.26

.79

2.98

.52

3.39

.54

2.42

1.06

3.07

.63

.

Overall

4.19

.

3.16

.86

3.11

.65

3.44

.54

3.15

1.10

3.13

.82

58


Table 4.4

Rogers Middle School Subject Area Comparison of Means

Subject ISTET 1 ISTET 2 ISTET 3 ISTET 4 ISTET 5 Overall

Lang. Arts n =6

M

SD

Mathematics n =3

M

SD

3.00

.82

3.00

.33

3.80

.42

2.43

1.16

3.33

.84

3.78

.38

1.83

.35

1.67

.33

3.03

.63

3.06

.25

3.00

.61

2.79

.49

Science n =2

M

SD

Social Studies n =5

3.67

.94

M

SD

Other n =3

3.30

.61

Total n =19

M

SD

3.33

1.45

M

SD

3.18

.78

3.50

.71

3.88

.90

3.73

1.55

3.56

.97

3.67

.00

4.30

.77

2.56

1.39

3.57

.95

3.00

1.41

2.53

.69

2.78

1.02

2.26

.79

3.33

.94

3.40

.57

2.44

.69

3.07

.63

3.43

.80

3.48

.71

2.97

1.22

3.13

.82

59


ISTET Standard Five. ISTET Standard Five concerned how teachers engaged in professional growth and leadership. Observation data were not collected because elements of this standard were not easily observed during classroom visits. This trait could be observed by attending staff meetings and regularly scheduled professional development, however, the focus of the data collection within this study was on the current instructional practices as a result of the professional development.

Table 4.1 shows a small number of teachers who reported participating in external conversations about technologyspecific teaching methods (16%) and following current research

(11%). This type of learning is what Gaible and Burns (2005) referred to as selfdirected. The majority of Rogers Middle School teachers (85%) reported they have a vision for what effective integration of technology looked like, and 79% agreed that they contributed to the school’s effective technology integration. As mentioned before, the administrators within this school are communicating a vision for integration through their Digital Learning Expectations Rubric.

There were two traits within this standard that showed the divide among teachers’ reported abilities. While 58% of teachers reported that they had the ability to help others develop technology skills, 43% were undecided or disagreed. When it came to promoting abilities, 42% of teachers agreed that they help others, while 57% were undecided or disagreed.

This divide could be related to a lack of community within the school’s training opportunities.

The more related the community of learners are to each other, the greater chance of effective professional development experiences (Desimone, 2009). There were not any examples during focus groups of teachers sharing their knowledge with each other.


On Table 4.2, seventh grade teachers had the highest mean for ISTET Standard Five at

3.33 (SD=.62) and eighth grade teachers were the lowest at 2.63 (SD=.57). The teacher with three to five years had the highest mean (M=4.33, SD=0) and teachers with the most experience

(31+ years) had the lowest (M=2.42, SD=1.06). The means on Table 4.4 (comparison of means for subject areas) were very similar.

During focus groups, an administrator spoke about a focus on training where teachers received individual training on issues that were specific to their needs. A Rogers Middle School coach said:

We get a lot of [requests for individual attention] that because they think the issue only applies to them and I think really, we've had a lot of talk about this, and I think our teachers learn by stepbystep and written down.

Teachers had opportunities to learn through video tutorials, but the administrator claimed that many still wanted individual attention. The administrators and coaches shared that even when group training was in progress, teachers would just sit and wait to receive individual attention. In fact, the administrators claimed that the teachers felt that if they didn’t receive individual attention then it “didn’t happen.” A coach shared:

T hey still want that person there with them [individual attention]. They will come to us still and say they haven't ever had any training and I'm (sic) just like, ‘You have all the training materials, you just haven't done anything with it.’ We also have some group or prep period stuff that is not very well attended.

This teacher mindset required the Rogers Middle School administrators and coaches to contextualize and professional development offerings. They emphasized side by side coaching

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 62 over a formal group learning experience to meet the needs of their teachers. While this is consistent with much of the research from Chapter Two on providing contextualized training

( Nuthall & AltonLee, 1993; Gaible & Burns, 2005; Hooker, 2008) , there should be concern that

57% of teachers do not feel as if they could confidently help a colleague. Successful professional development programs provide ongoing support through professional learning communities (Hanover Research, 2014).

The administrators and coaches were aware that multiple teachers at Rogers Middle

School were not 100% interested in increasing their use of student technology. A coach said:

I do not ever do anything just to push tech (sic). The teachers do not realize that though.

That's where I think there is sometimes a disconnect. It comes down to beliefs. They think we are just pushing another tech. tool to them, but it is the student engagement piece we are trying to push. The disconnect is that they see it as a burden rather than,

‘This is how I really open up some things in my classroom.’

While the coaches were attempting to offer professional development they believed would increase student engagement, they did not mention attempting to match the current instructional style of the teachers. The teachers did not mention this connection either, but many referenced the trainings as a “burden,” and failed to see how it made them more effective at their job. The coaches did not mention making it a priority to choose tools to connect with a teacher by making their current instructional style more effective. It is important that professional development include strategies and tools that the teachers currently value (Hanover Research,

2014). Teachers also need to understand why there is urgency in changing their methods (Clarke

& Hollingsworth, 2002).


Most Rogers teachers claimed that the professional development was primarily delivered in a group atmosphere and it was the responsibility of the teacher to follow up with coaches if they needed clarification. This fits closest to the description of standardized training (Gaible &

Burns, 2005) where there is a cascade approach in which the information is generally “thrown” upon participants.

A teacher said, “I think it is presented and then you are expected to go off and use it or not use it. If you use it and need help, then you call out for help.” In general, the teachers had become disenchanted with new tools. They were much more interested in learning specific strategies for improving student learning, and the tools that could make these strategies more effective. One teacher shared, “There are so many apps and they have pushed so much towards us that I am experiencing technology fatigue.” Another teacher commented:

It takes me double time to do everything, and I question if anyone has examined that part of it. The time drain. No one is acknowledging that you have to work twice as hard to get half the results...and no one is putting a price on my time. I do not feel like I ever get to ‘clock off.’ We aren’t measuring teacher fatigue or the time the element that I am always tied to my technology.

When pushed to explain further how the current professional development offerings could be improved, a teacher shared:

A long time ago when you did PD, they sent you out for a specific session or conference that you chose. You knew what you were going for and you knew why you were going, and you had an idea of where you might apply it and the actual physical moment the output and the conversation with colleagues was as valuable as anything else. Now it’s


(sic) like, these coaches who are extremely knowledgeable are going to come in and show you something and then you have to go back to your room and figure out how you are going to apply it. I find that frustrating.

Teachers were interested in gaining autonomy and selfdirection regarding their learning opportunities. Another teacher echoed this statement by saying:

That is what I want out of PD. Not so much here's a bunch of resources. I want it to apply more to me. That is what is missing from our PD. This is exciting! This is new!

This is amazing, but there isn’t (sic) any, ‘This is how you use it.’ There’s no here is the tool and let’s give you five strategies for using it in your classroom. That’s what I need.

The frustration expressed here was consistent with what was reported by the administrators and coaches. When it came to choosing topics for professional development, the administrator/coach focused on tools teachers could use for student engagement, but the teachers were seeking professional development opportunities that would introduce tools and strategies to make their instruction more effective.

There are many aspects of the research on effective practices for professional development missing at Rogers Middle School. There was no mention of any sitebased training that would encourage collaboration and flexibility through small group interactions. This mode of training is best when attempting to move move beyond basic awareness and the general introduction of concepts (Gaible & Burns, 2005). There was also a great deal of frustration from teachers about the number of topics being covered that are not necessarily meaningful to them.

While this indicates that administrators and coaches were not approaching their professional development from a lens of Transformational Learning Theory, it is also indicative of an

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 65 organization that is not really learning, but just attempting new things. These results in frustrated teachers who do not feel their time is being used wisely (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). A more productive strategy would be to a student learning strategy such as producing original work, and help teachers learn about how technology can have a positive effect. Areas of strength and concern are explored on Table 4.5.

Identified Traits for Professional Development. The purpose of collecting the data displayed in Table 4.5 was to see if some of the traits identified during Chapter Two were cited or valued more often by the educators at these two schools. For Rogers Middle School, the expert panel agreed on trait identification in 93% of coded instances. The focus group transcripts were coded by the expert panel according to ten different traits (contextualized to gradelevel/subject, jobembedded, time provided for reflection, community approach, respected teacher beliefs, datadriven, focused content, tiered/leveled training, varied methods of delivery, and focus on student learning) that were identified in Chapter Two. The traits that were

discussed more frequently (in a positive manner) were considered ones that were considered valued by the teachers and administrators. The evidence of these traits were coded from the teacher and administrator focus group transcripts pertaining to ISTET Standard Five on professional development and growth.


Table 4.5

Ten Identified Traits for Effective Professional Development: Rogers MS

Trait

Trait One

Contextualized

Instances Identified

6

Trait Two Jobembedded

5

Trait Three Reflection

3

Trait Four Community Approach

6

Trait Five Teacher Beliefs

9

Trait Six DataDriven

5

Trait Seven Focused Content

0

Trait Eight Tiered/Leveled Offerings

1

Trait Nine Varied Delivery Methods

3

Trait Ten Student Learning Focus

5

When teachers and administrators at Rogers Middle School talked about professional development, the traits that were mentioned most frequently were a focus on addressing teachers beliefs (Trait Five), contextualizing the learning experiences to the teacher gradelevel and subject (Trait One), and a community approach (Trait Four). While this study did not originally attempt to code the number of negative statements made about a trait, it is worth noting that the traits for contextualizing learning experiences and a community approach had the highest number of negative comments.


An administrator shared, “ Our teachers like to learn from one another best. They like professional development to look like their classroom. They do not like outside trainers coming in, but if their peer sits down and they are trying something in their classroom that they can beg, borrow, and steal from someone that they know there is a comfort level there.” The administrators respected that the teachers had a belief about what the professional development experiences should look like, and they believed they were using their community of learners to provide opportunities for teachers to learn from peers so those experiences could be contextualized. The teachers and coaches, however, did not provide examples of this type of professional development offering.

It is consistent with the data from ISTET Standard Five that there were zero instances of focused content (Trait Seven) mentioned during focus groups. Teachers at Rogers Middle

School expressed their frustration at the number of topics offered and the lack of time provided for mastery to occur. As mentioned before, there was not an overarching focus to what was being offered to the teachers, but instead a value for simply attempting new things. Rogers

Middle School was also missing a focus on tiered/leveled offerings and varied delivery methods

( Schrum & Levin, 2013). While administrators mentioned that they offer video tutorials and other online opportunities, these were not mentioned by the teachers at any time during the focus groups.

Most importantly, there were only three instances of reflection shared. Reflection is an essential component of Transformational Learning Theory (Dirkz, 1998), and research shows the new learning is more likely retained when teachers have a chance to reflect with a small group on the experience (Tillema, 2000). Rogers Middle School coaches could meet this need by

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 68 offering more blended learning opportunities where there would have the benefits of facetoface interaction, but also the ability to have teachers reflect online at a time when it is more convenient (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004).

ISTET Standard One. Within ISTET Standard One, ISTE provides instructional suggestions including increased opportunities for studentdirected learning, collaboration, and creativity in the demonstration of mastery. As displayed in Table 4.1, 58% of teachers surveyed report that their students have opportunities for learning through discussion and collaboration multiple times a week or daily, but only 26% reported having opportunities for student creativity.

The survey question and observation criteria for “creative or innovative learning” were operationalized as student opportunities for projects, presentations, and research papers. This observation trait showed a clear divide as 53% of teachers reported giving students these opportunities once a month or never, and 47% gave opportunities at least once a week. There was also a clear divide among staff when it came to other forms of instruction such as peer collaboration (37% offer once a week or less) and small/whole group discussion (42% report use once a week or less).

Table 4.2 shows that sixth (M=3.39, SD=.68) and seventh (M=3.29, SD=.45) grade teachers had the highest means for this standard, with eighth grade teachers a distant third

(M=2.73, SD=1.21). Teachers with 21 to 30 years of experience had the highest mean (M=3.89,

SD=.38) as seen in Table 4.3, and teachers with 11 to 20 years experience were very similar

(M=3.87, SD=.65). The lowest mean (M=3.00, SD=1.20) was found among teachers with six to ten years of experience.


Science (M=3.67, SD=.94) and social studies (M=3.30, SD=.61)) teachers had the highest mean on Table 4.4, and mathematics (M=3.00, SD=.33) and language arts teachers (M=3.00,

SD=.82) were the lowest. Based on this survey data, one would expect to see the strongest evidence of ISTET Standard One in a sixth grade social studies classroom led by a teacher with

2130 years of experience. However, the n for all of these subcategories are quite low.

During the focus groups, the majority of teachers were unable to provide specific examples of how students used creativity and collaboration in learning. One teacher shared that her students were using iPads individually to research and capture pictures with the goal of creating a digital book using an app. One teacher described how she allowed students to research and create presentation slides, but there was not an element of collaboration with the project.

Despite 63% of teachers reporting that they allow time for collaboration multiple times a week or daily, there were not any examples of this instructional practice shared during the focus groups. Most examples were based on using the technology as a substitute for their existing practices before they had devices. For example, a Rogers Middle School teacher shared, “ With mine [assignments] they like making it personal and grabbing images they choose and use it for the assignment like grabbing a picture and writing a sentence about that image with a vocabulary word.” This is an example of using the technology as a substitute for previous instructional practices or Substitution within the SAMR Model ( Puentedura, 2013) .

Administrators reported that some teachers used digital portfolios for students, but they said that the majority of instruction is still teachercentered. The administrators were interested

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 70 in teachers providing more opportunities for studentdirected learning. One administrator shared:

Some specific projects have gone on digital portfolios and lots of choice relative choice. We want to see more. A few [students] are using different apps and different programs to create and build their own portfolios, but there should be more customization going on.

This administrator is sharing that they believe opportunities for creativity and studentdirected learning are an area where the teachers in the building could improve. Schools that adapt instruction towards a studentdirected learning experience will experience a deeper amount of integration and a more effective use of technology for learning (Hanover Research,

2014). However, this administrator expressed that the pressures of preparing students for standardized tests often leave teachers with little time to cover some of the more creative learning opportunities as represented within ISTET Standard One.

ISTET Standard Two. ISTET Standard Two provided information around how teachers design and develop digital learning experiences and assessments. Specifically, the survey and observation tools gathered data on overall student use, Google Apps for Education applications, use of a learning management system (LMS), and an individualized learning experience for students based on a variety of assessments.

The data for student use of devices was consistent between what the teachers reported

(79% use multiple times a week or daily) and the observations (76% observed). The focus group interview with the Rogers Middle School administrators and coaches revealed that My Big

Campus (learning management system), and Google Apps for Education (GAFE) were a major

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 71 focus during the first year of the initiative. Specifically, teachers were expected to post a daily agenda within My Big Campus every week. A total of 89% of the teachers reported using My

Big Campus at least multiple times a week. The administrator/coach focus group did not provide clear instructional expectations for the use of GAFE, and there was a divide among staff who reported using it consistently with students. Among Rogers Middle School teachers 43% used

GAFE once a month or never, and 48% used it once a week or daily.

There was a similar divide among the traits for use of software for differentiation and use of data from assessments. There were 38% of teachers who used software for differentiation once a month or never, and 50% using it multiple times a week or daily. When it came to formative and summative assessment data, 41% of teachers reported using student results once a month or never, and 36% reported using it multiple times a week or daily.

As can be seen on Table 4.2, sixth grade teachers had the highest mean for this standard

(M=4.08, SD=.80). Table 4.3 shows that there teachers with three to five years of experience

(M=4.60, SD=0) had the same mean as teachers with 31 years or more (M=4.60, SD=.57). The lowest mean was 2.98 (SD=.91) for teachers with 1120 years of experience.

The means for specific subject areas were very similar with the exception of mathematics teachers. These teachers had a 2.43 mean (SD=1.16), and that was distant from the overall average of 3.56 (SD=.97) for ISTET Standard Two at Rogers Middle School.

During focus groups, teachers reported use of My Big Campus for communication with students, but they did not provide other examples of how this program was used within their classrooms. They also described using software such as NewsELA, Study Island, and Acuity to

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 72 differentiate learning for students. Teachers talked about the student use of apps as tools for writing papers and creating presentations. One teacher said:

They [students] do a lot of neuAnnotate stuff. It replaces the paper and pencil. We also do a lot of synthesis of information with flash cards GFlash Plus. They can get to it online or they have the app on their iPad.

Both of the tools shared by the teacher were substitution examples, and the use of a digital tool for flash cards was not an example of a synthesislevel or creation opportunity for student learning.

Administrators said that more teachers were using technology to check for understanding, but they believed that databased decision making was a weaker area for the school overall.

There was a great deal of interest in creating common formative assessments, and making better use of the technology for planning remediation. One administrator shared:

Data has always been a weak component for me personally. I think that translates to the rest. I have some teachers through RISE [teacher evaluation process] that have realized they need to do better with this and look for growth. As far as managing classroombased assessment data we don't (sic) do a good job of talking about baseline requirements for teachers.

This might explain why 41% of teachers on Table 4.1 disagree or strongly disagree that they use data from assessments to customize learning for students. The teachers did not report any discomfort with using technology to assess student data It is likely that the lowuse can be attributed to administrators admitting that baseline requirements for using data are not a strength for their staff.


ISTET Standard Three. ISTET Standard Three covered how teachers model digital learning work and learning within their classrooms. The survey and observation tools measured the use of available technology for instruction, parent communication, and the use of internet resources for instruction. Table 4.1 shows that a majority of Rogers teachers (73%) report using instructional technology and internet resources (68%) multiple times a week or daily. While the observation data for the instructional technology trait was not as high as the survey, there was still a clear use by a majority of teachers (59%). It is worth noting that during classrooms observations, the majority of the technologyuse centered around teacher lecture.

It was interesting that there was a large difference between the survey and observations in regards to Rogers Middle School teachers and their use of internet resources (68% on survey vs.

94% observed). There was a divide among the teachers’ use of digital tools for communication with parents. Table 4.1 shows that 53% of surveyed teachers use tools for parent communication once a month or less, and 30% use them multiple times a week or daily. Specifically, Table 4.2 showed that seventh grade teachers had the highest mean for this standard (M=4.08, SD=.71), and Table 4.3 showed the teachers with three to five years of experience reported daily use

(M=5.00, SD=0). Social studies teachers (M=4.30, SD=.77) had the highest mean with mathematics teachers a distant second (M=3.78, SD=.38).

During focus groups, teachers consistently reported that when communication occurs they are using My Big Campus for student communication, and email for parent communication.

A few teachers said that they are friends with parents on Facebook as well. The administrators believe the increased use of internet resources and tools had an impact on student engagement.

One leader explained:


I really think that our kids are more engaged. They're not always engaged in learning what we want them to learn but I think we are creating engaged learners. They are getting out there and searching and navigating and looking up their passions. I think if we give kids access to their passions, then we're doing pretty good.

While this administrator expressed personal feelings about student engagement, there were not clear examples shared. The administrators pointed to the attendance and behavior data during the transition between the 20102011 and 20112012 school years, but data were not provided for the following school years.

ISTET Standard Four. ISTET Standard Four covered how teachers promote/model digital citizenship and responsible use of technology. On Table 4.1, few teachers reported providing students guidance regarding responsible use of technology (16%), and only 6% of classrooms had evidence of expectations for responsible use. Teachers said during focus groups that they felt as if this was an area where they needed improvement. They felt they had done a

“good job” holding kids accountable, but they admitted they were mostly “reactive.” Teachers reported that they relied heavily on the internet filter to block inappropriate sites, but they knew they should be do more to help students make better decisions. They also believed they influenced students by modeling digital citizenship during their classroom interactions online.

One teacher shared, “ I don’t (sic) think I do a good job of that [talking about digital citizenship] at all except for just modeling.”

Then comparison of means in Tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 were consistent with Rogers

Middle School staff identification of this standard as one they need to address. The lowest means were in the eighth grade (M=1.93, SD=.64) among teachers with 1120 years of

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 75 experience (M=2.03, SD=.46). There was a difference in reported teacherability among subject areas. Mathematics teachers reported fewer conversations about digital citizenship (M=1.67,

SD=.33), while science teachers reported conversations at least once a week (M=3.00, SD=1.41).

Administrators included topics in newsletters home throughout the year, and gave parents tips for interacting with the students and their devices at home. Administrators agreed that the

“best” method was modeling starting with themselves.

I think we have pushed when we talk to teachers it is modeling from the top down. We try to model and point out this is the way it should be done. I think it is kind of hit or miss. Some do a really good job and some may not know it [digital citizenship expectations] exists.

Since administrators were unsure if some teachers knew that digital citizenship expectations existed, it is unlikely this has been communicated in a sufficient manner to teachers.

SAMR Levels. The SAMR levels were measured during the classroom observations.

The highest observed SAMR level was measured within each individual classroom for students and teachers. These groups were measured individually because the SAMR level looks very different based on whether or not the learning is teacher or studentdirected. For example, in a classroom where the students are learning independently with technology, the teacher SAMR level may not even be Substitution, but the student may be operating at Modification or higher.

A teacher may be at a Modification level while leading instruction, and students may not have

devices at all.


Table 4.6

Rogers Middle School SAMR Levels (Observed)

Not

Observed

Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition

% % % % %

Students

24 0 29 47 0

41 6 29 24 0

Teachers

While the overall percentages of SAMR levels were similar for teachers and students at

Rogers Middle School, 23% more students were at a modification level compared to the teachers. This indicated that there are opportunities for studentdirected learning. There was not any evidence of Redefinition for either group. It was interesting that there was evidence of high level SAMR learning opportunities in 76% of classrooms, but it was surprising that 24% of students were not observed at a Substitutionlevel. This indicates that there are uneven experiences for students regarding their use of technology within different classrooms. However, this was consistent with the data from ISTET Standard Two where 24% of students were not observed using a device. The 41% of teachers not observed at any level of SAMR was also consistent with the 41% of teachers not observed using technology for instruction on ISTET

Standard Three.

Summary

Rogers Middle School is a building where teachers and administrators have taken bold steps to integrate student technology. There were ISTET standards where a clear majority of teachers had moved technologyuse forward such as ISTET Standard 2. There was a greater

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 77 amount of use within this standard because this is where the efforts of the administrators and coaches were focused. A great deal of professional development time was spent on My Big

Campus, and, as a result, this was observed in the majority of classrooms. Others traits of strength were studentuse of devices, use of a learning management system, lecturebased instructional technology, use of internet resources for instruction, and a common vision for effective technology integration.

There were multiple traits where the growth was much more divided. These traits were opportunities for student creativity, use of GAFE, use of software to differentiate learning, use of data to customize learning, use of digital tools to communicate with parents, possessing the ability to develop other teachers, and promotion of this ability. This results from the overwhelming use of standardized professional development (Gaible & Burns, 2005), and a lack of effort to create learning opportunities within different modes and levels (Schrum & Levin,

2013).

Through an examination of the aggregated means (average of all five ISTET Standards) for Rogers Middle School teachers, the strongest example of the ISTET Standards were found in a sixth grade social studies classroom led by a teacher with three to five years experience. The highest mean for years of experience was quite clear as the teacher with three to five years had a mean of 4.19 (SD=0) compared to the overall average across all groups of 3.13. The other two examined demographics were closer with sixth grade (M=3.39, SD=.72) close to seventh grade

(M=3.23, SD=.71), and social studies (M=3.48, SD=.71) close to science (M=3.43, SD=.80).

The lowest among the grade level and subject area traits were eighth grade (M=2.64, SD=.87) and mathematics (M=2.79, SD=.49).


The focus group interviews revealed that, while most teachers agreed that the professional development offerings were standardized in nature, there were multiple teachers who felt this did not fit their learning style. Many teachers reported that training needed to be based on instructional strategies specific to their subject. They felt they did not have adequate time to absorb new information and apply the tools to their own context (Garet, Porter,

Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). The administrators and coaches expressed recognition that teachers were frustrated that professional development offerings were focused more on tools, but they never spoke of an understanding that the teachers were seeking help on specific instructional moments. There was a disconnect between the professional development opportunities the teachers were seeking and the offerings that were provided.

Stark Middle School

Stark Middle School is located within a mediumsized district located in a rural part of the state. Among the teachers at Stark Middle School, 32% had teaching for ten years or less.

The district began the first step in their initiative during the 20102011 school year by establishing a leadership team, presenting to the school board, and piloting student devices at the high school level. The high school 1:1 launched during the 20112012 school year, and Stark

Middle School began piloting student devices. At this time, technology coaching positions were added and the professional development offerings were increased before, during, and after the school day. The initial focus for Stark Middle School Teachers was My Big Campus. The 1:1 at

Stark Middle School officially launched during the 20122013 school year.

Stark Middle School was one of the first schools in the state to receive permission to have an eLearning Flex Day. On three days during the school year, students worked from home, and


teachers had allday professional development opportunities at school. Teachers also had continued opportunities for professional development as requested from the coaches. During the

20132014 school year, Stark Middle School established a student technology leadership team and created a strategic plan with expectations for teachers to further guide and focus the professional development offerings. The professional development opportunities continued during the 20142015 school year, and the district created a new districtlevel technology leadership team to refresh the vision and professional learning goals.

Comparative data were collected via teacher survey, classroom observation, and focus groups. As with Rogers Middle School, ISTET Standard Five is examined first to create an

understanding of the professional development. The results for all ISTET standards are displayed in Table 4.7.


Table 4.7

Stark Middle School Survey and Observation Data by ISTET Standard




Students opportunities for creativity or innovation when demonstrating learning



Students use of Google Apps for Education

Student use of a learning management system






Use of resources or research from the internet (nontextbook) for instruction






0

0

1

%

2

(N=19)

3 4 5

% % % %

25

4

25

16

38

56

13

24

12 40 24 16 8

Observation

(N=17)

1

%

23

8

31

0 4 4 44 48

20 12 28 32 8

0 8 24 20 48

24 4 4 60 8

0

0

8

0

16

4

4

16

24

4

28

0

36

12

24

40

24

80

36

44

4 32 16 48 0

12 40 16 32 0

20 48 8 24 0

.

.

.

.

(continued)

.

46

15

38

8

8

100

23

77

.

.

.

23



Stark Middle School Survey and Observation Data by ISTET Standard (continued)

ISTE Standard Five


Following current research related to educational technology.

Vision of effective technology

Ability to help others develop technology skills

Promotion of ability to help others develop technology skills

Contribution to the effectiveness of technology integration

0

0

0

0

0

1 2 3 4 5

36 28 16 16 4

64 20 12 4

4 12 76 8

4 28 52 16

8 28 48 16

0 12 80 8

.

.

.

.

.

.

81


Table 4.8

Stark Middle School Grade Level Comparison of Means

Grade

Level

Sixth

( n =8)

ISTET 1

M 3.33

ISTET 2

3.35

ISTET 3

4.04

ISTET 4 ISTET 5

2.67

3.27

.61

.90

1.08

.34

Seventh

( n =8)

SD .71

M 3.75

Eighth

( n =9)

SD .61

4.13

.58

4.63

.60

3.17

.80

3.83

.61

Total

( n =25)

M 3.04

SD .75

M 3.36

SD .73

3.53

.53

3.66

.64

3.93

.98

4.19

.87

2.33

.75

2.71

.91

3.02

.39

3.36

.56

Overall

3.33

.73

3.90

.64

3.17

.68

3.46

.74

82


Table 4.9

Stark Middle School Years of Experience Comparison of Means


12 years

(n =3)

M 3.22

SD .84

35 years

(n =2)

M

4.50

610 years

(n =3)

SD .24

M 3.00

SD .88

1120 years

(n =6)

M 3.83

SD .28

2130 years

(n =8)

31+ years

(n =3)

M 3.13

SD .71

M 2.78

SD .19

ISTET 2

3.07

.23

3.20

.28

3.60

.40

4.43

.08

3.55

.66

3.40

.69

ISTET 3

3.67

.33

4.50

.71

4.44

.51

4.94

.14

4.33

.47

2.33

.33

ISTET 4

2.00

.67

2.17

.71

2.56

1.50

3.78

.34

2.67

.59

1.89

.19

ISTET 5

3.00

.44

3.83

.00

3.33

.17

3.50

.18

3.50

.82

2.78

.25

Overall

2.99

.50

3.64

.39

3.39

.69

4.10

.20

3.44

.65

2.64

.33

(continued)

83


Stark Middle School Years of Experience Comparison of Means (continued)

Total

(n =25)

M 3.36

SD .73

3.66

.64

4.19

.87

2.71

.91

3.36

.56

3.46

.74

84


Table 4.10

Stark Middle School Subject Area Comparison of Means

Subject ISTET 1 ISTET 2 ISTET 3 ISTET 4 ISTET 5 Overall

Lang. Arts

(n =6)

Math

(n =5)

M

SD .91

3.50

Science

(n =0)

Social

Studies

(n =5)

M 2.80

SD .69

.

Other

(n =9)

M 3.40

SD .37

M 3.56

SD .73

Total

(n =25)

M 3.36

SD .73

3.97

.76

3.40

.40

.

3.84

.55

3.51

.69

3.66

.64

4.78

.27

4.07

.64

.

4.73

.37

3.56

1.03

4.19

.87

3.44

.78

2.27

1.19

.

2.87

.80

2.37

.65

2.71

.91

3.39

.14

3.33

.17

.

3.20

.51

3.44

.88

3.36

.56

3.82

.57

3.17

.62

.

3.61

.52

3.29

.80

3.46

.74

85


ISTET Standard Five. At Stark Middle School, 64% of teachers disagree/strongly disagree that they interact online with other professionals outside of their district (compared to

20% who agree/strongly agree), and that this same percent disagreed that they follow current educational technology research, while 16% agree/strongly agree. Even though only 16% to

20% of teachers report what Gaible and Burns (2005) would describe as selfdirected professional development habits, 84% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that they have a vision of effective technology. Furthermore, 68% of teachers agree/strongly agree that they had the ability to help others develop technology skills. The means were similar for most subgroups, and teachers with 31 years of experience or showed the lowest mean (M=2.78, SD=.25) compared to the overall average (M=3.36, SD=.56).

Teachers said that the professional development opportunities they received were quite good, but there was not enough time provided for application. As a result, they often felt frustrated because they were not able to implement ideas they knew would be beneficial for student learning. Administrators and coaches reported they were striving to create professional development opportunities that met the diverse needs of the teachers as learners, and they attempted to involve them as much as possible in the learning process. Three important aspects of jobembedded professional development are time to absorb, time to discuss, and time to practice new knowledge (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). If the majority of teacher learning experiences are single session or standardized (Gaible & Burns, 2005), then research shows that it is unlikely to result in a change in practices (Webster & Wright, 2009).

During focus groups for this standard, multiple teachers mentioned once again that their first eLearning Day created a greater sense of urgency for the entire staff:


I’m (sic) going to be honest with you I didn’t use it until we forced to do our first eLearning day and then it was, ‘Oh, Lord I’ve (sic) got to learn how to do this.’ I think that was across the board (laughs). I think that was...but...I think we’re pretty good at it now for the most part. Slowly, we started getting more comfortable with it.

Administrators and coaches echoed the positive effects of the eLearning Days:

I think the eLearning days are a good example where teachers have time to collaborate and share what they’ve learned. These are led by our teacherleaders which are our teachers, and last time I tried to get some other teachers involved in that and then...um...I tried to get them to lead as much as possible.

These quotes capture the positive culture that teachers and administrators feel has been developed as a result of the eLearning Days. The experience met the needs and expectations for both groups and contributed to a perception of effective use of professional development time.

Teachers need to understand why they need to change their methods, (Clarke & Hollingsworth,

2002) and these eLearning Days provided a sense of urgency. Having entire days devoted to their learning and application also met their needs as adult learners (Tillema, 2000; Dirkz, 1998).

During focus groups, teachers responded very positively to the presence of identified teacherleaders within the building that they could turn to for help as needed. These teacherleaders taught fulltime, but were given a stipend for stepping into a leadership role. A

Stark teacher said:

I tend to ask those teachers more because they are the ones who are in the trenches with us. They understand the glitches when you are in the classroom. Those teachers will stop by or just say, ‘Come on in,’ you know...or she’ll send out an email to everyone

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 88 saying, ‘Hey everyone, I found a great...blah, blah, blah. Here are some directions if you have any questions, then come and see me.’ She has met with us after school to do things.

This is an example of the Stark teachers interest in learning about tools that made their instruction easier and more effective, so it is not surprising that they find the information from colleagues to be of value. While the coaches provided professional development about tools that were potentially useful, their fellow teachers shared information that was valuable in a classroom situation. When a community of learners are created, there is a greater chance of having effective professional development experiences (Desimone, 2009).

Teachers felt their learning process had been aided by clear expectations from the administrators. “Our administrators have also been very clear about what is expected. For example, she told all teachers to put their agendas in a certain place on My Big Campus and once she did that they did.” However, there were multiple teachers who also shared that the professional development offerings were not always as helpful as they would have liked for them to be:

I have to learn by doing. I think the biggest obstacle was we want to learn by doing, but we are so swamped under by time and it is often easier for someone to do it for us. I feel like there is always something new and as soon as we start to understand one thing, you almost quit before you start. We are overwhelmed.

One teacher shared, “I try on the eLearning Days to do cool stuff, but sometimes there isn't (sic) something I know of that I can use on a daily basis.” These teachers understood that there was limited time for professional development, but they expressed that their learning

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 89 process was not being respected. In order to meet their learning style, they needed a focused curriculum with clear learning objectives. There is a difference between an organization that learns and one that only attempts new things (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Furthermore, teachers expressed here that they did not feel they had a voice in identifying and planning professional development that they felt would be used on a daily basis. A better option would be for the administrators and coaches to gather teacher input so they could make use of the technologies that teachers would be able to within their current instructional style (Hanover Research, 2014).

Administrators and coaches said that training is planned based on what they observe during their own classroom visits:

PD is chosen in several ways and by several different groups. We conduct weekly classroom walk throughs with ‘look fors.’ Based on what we see with the implementation and levels of proficiency, we plan our PD for monthly faculty meetings.

This group reported that they heard the grumblings from teachers about the need for more subjectspecific offerings for professional development, and they were planning to make changes to meet this need. “We’re moving away from here’s the tool to here’s the instructional strategy and here’s the things that can help you with that.” This coach went on to say:

I feel that the best PD happens when we take into consideration the comfort level, experience level, and leadership levels of our teachers. We take them where they are, we provide the training with their own colleagues, provide support with teacherleaders who are their own colleagues in their building, and we provide ongoing support.

This quote described the vision for the professional development offerings at Stark

Middle School, and mirrored what some teachers said needed improvement with their existing


professional development offerings. The vision also touches on much of the research from

Chapter Two in regards to teaching adults, empowering teachers, and reflecting on learning.

Identified Traits for Effective Professional Development. The same process was followed for the Stark Middle School transcripts as with Rogers Middle School. The focus group transcripts from the ISTET Standard Five of the administrator and teacher interviews were coded by the expert panel according to positive examples of ten different traits identified in

Chapter Two: contextualized to gradelevel/subject, jobembedded, time provided for reflection, community approach, respected teacher beliefs, datadriven, focused content, tiered/leveled training, varied methods of delivery, and focus on student learning. For Rogers Middle School,

the expert panel agreed on trait identification in 89% of coded instances.


Table 4.11

Ten Identified Traits for Effective Professional Development: Stark Middle School

Trait One

Trait

Contextualized

Instances Identified

3


10


2


3


9


7


1

Trait Eight Tiered/Leveled Offerings

5

Trait Nine Varied Delivery Methods

2

Trait Ten Student Learning Focus

6

The highest rated traits for Stark Middle School professional development was their focus on jobembedded experiences (Trait Two), addressing teacher beliefs (Trait Five), keeping the focus of learning experiences on student learning (Trait Ten), and a datadriven approach (Trait

Six). The clearest example of jobembedded professional learning experiences came from the eLearning Days Stark Middle School held. One teacher shared:

I didn’t use it until we were forced to do our first eLearning day and then it was…’Oh,

Lord I’ve (sic) got to learn how to do this.’ I think that was across the board (laughs). I

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 92 think that was...but...I think we’re pretty good at it now for the most part. Slowly, we started getting more comfortable with it.

This statement was consistent with thoughts from several teachers and administrators during focus groups. The eLearning Day required all staff to use the new tools and strategies for instruction, and they were given more learning experiences during work hours while the students worked from home. The use of data was described by an administrator, “We conduct weekly classroom walkthroughs with “look fors.” Based on what we see with the implementation and levels of proficiency, we plan our PD for monthly faculty meetings.” Teachers knew that administrators would be in their classrooms looking for evidence of professional learning experiences, and there were expectations that administrators would plan professional learning experiences based on what they observed.

The traits with fewest observed instances were reflection (Trait Two), focused content

(Trait Seven), and varied delivery methods (Trait Two). The lack of evidence of these traits is consistent with statements some teachers made about being overwhelmed. “ I feel like there is always something new and as soon as we start to understand one thing, you almost quit before you start. We are overwhelmed.”

If teachers are not allowed time to reflect and process on new ideas that are applicable to what they are teaching in their classroom, then Transformational Learning Theory tells us that the new learning will not have the chance to be integrated into what they already know

(Mezirow, 1991). Administrators and coaches did not share any evidence of a clear professional learning plan with focused content and specific goals. However, they did report that they knew it was important to focus offerings and vary delivery methods. One coach said:


I feel that the best PD happens when we take into consideration the comfort level, experience level, and leadership levels of our teachers. We take them where they are, we provide the training with their own colleagues, provide support with eLeaders who are their own colleagues in their building, and we provide ongoing support.

While they reported these learning experiences as their “best,” there were not examples of teachers sharing any learning that met this description. There were not any examples of learning opportunities for teachers that were blended or online. All examples of training shared were inperson and synchronous.

ISTET Standard One. When it came to peer collaboration and group discussion, there was a distinct disconnect between what teachers reported within the survey and what was actually observed in the classrooms. However, on Table 4.7 the data for student opportunities to use creativity when demonstrating learning was quite close (3% difference). There was a clear divide among teachers for this trait as 52% of teachers provided opportunities for creativity once a month or less, and 48% offered opportunities once a week or more. This divide was also seen on Table 4.7 under the Observation heading (31% observed, 69% not observed).

Table 4.9 provides more specific information on the divide based on years of teaching experience. Teachers with three to five years of teaching experience had a mean of 4.50

(SD=.24), compared to the average mean for this trait at 3.36 (SD=.73). There was also data concerning the divide by subject area (Table 4.10). Mathematics teachers had a mean of 2.80

(SD=.69) compared to the average mean of 3.36 (SD=.73) for this trait within ISTET Standard

One.


Despite the fact that the trait for creativity was only observed in 31% of the classrooms, the teachers provided many examples for creativity and innovation within their classrooms during focus groups. Multiple teachers mentioned student choice of tools when it came to projects. These tools included: iMovie (moviemaking software for MacBooks), Prezi

(presentation software), and Glogster (online poster board). They expressed frustration at the lack of time to explore more tools that they could make available for student use. They shared that they had little time to cover their standards already, and there often was not time to allow students to approach learning from a projectbased perspective. A Stark Middle School teacher shared:

I don’t (sic) even know how they do half of the things they [students] do. That bothers me at times. I wish there was enough time in the day, but I have to make sure I know that they [students] can take away the things I want them to take away. I can’t (sic) worry too much with the technology because they [students] do know. But then there are other times I need the tools and don’t have time.

This quote summarized a frustration that was expressed by many Stark Middle School teachers they they feel they are not given enough time to explore the tools. The teachers understood they need to trust the students to learn the technology, but they were concerned the learning outcomes they desire may not be achieved. They felt they would have expectations for a specific outcome if they had a better sense of the potential studentuse of the technology.

Administrators believe that teachers are allowing students a “great deal” of choice of tools when it comes to presentations and projects. They also shared there are teacher

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS expectations for learning activities that involve student collaboration. However, these collaborations do not always involve technology.

95

ISTET Standard Two. While there were similarities between survey (48% daily) and observation data (46% observed) when it came to the majority of students using their devices, there was another trait where there was a divide among the teachers at Stark Middle School.

While there was little overall observation evidence for the use of software to differentiate learning (8%), the teachers reported very drastic differences on the survey. On Table 4.7, 68% of teachers responded that they differentiate with software multiple times a week, and 24% said that they never do so. The use of Google Apps for Education showed a similar gap as 32% of teachers used it once a month or less and 40% of teachers used it multiple times a week or daily.

Specifically, the highest means for this standard were found with seventh grade teachers

(M=4.13, SD=.58), and teachers with 1120 years of teaching experience (M=4.43, SD=.08).

Teachers reported that students mainly use their devices for research, iXL (mathematics formative assessment tool), Google Docs (collaborative online word processing), Readworks

(reading comprehension application) and Kahoot (online review game). A Stark Middle School teacher shared:

Well, because I teach math and science, we do a lot of research. They [students] look up things instead of me just spewing all the information out or them finding it in a book.

You know, they are able to look up things on their own find it on their own.

This is an example of how the teacher allowed the learning in the classroom to shift from teacherdirected to studentdirected because the technology allowed the student to have access to the information independently. Although the technology was a substitution for the textbook, this

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 96 example was Modification within SAMR because the students are (potentially) accessing a large amount of regularly updated information and identifying/evaluating the most useful and meaningful sources of information (Puentedura, 2013). This was beyond what could have been accomplished with only a textbook or lecture.

Administrators shared that the technology has made teachers more effective at gathering, analyzing data, and grouping students into intervention groups. One said, “Our teachers use data from online assessments to inform themselves on how students are doing on the new standards that have been covered and this leads them in review and reteaching.” Before the students had devices, gathering and analyzing the data was a timeconsuming process. The technology made this practice easier and more effective.

ISTET Standard Three. ISTET Standard Three shows a clear majority (or all) of teachers using available instructional technology (100% observed, 92% mutiple time a week or more). The survey data for the use of digital tools (parent communication) and internet resources showed a majority of teachers reported use at least weekly. While a majority of teachers claimed they used internet resources multiple times a week or more (84%), the other survey responses all fell within the “once a month” category. The difference was somewhat consistent with the observation grouping (77% observed vs. 23% not observed), but it demonstrated that teachers are either incorporating internet resources consistently or rarely. There was not a middle ground.

The comparison of means data was consistent across subject area and grade level, but there was a clear gap among teachers with 31 years or more of teaching experience. The mean for this group was 2.33 (SD=.33) compared to the overall average of 4.19 (SD=.87).


Teachers shared examples of students using their devices to consume digital curriculum from various cloudbased applications and public domain texts. Stark Middle School teachers cited email (parents) and My Big Campus (students) as their main communication mediums.

However, there were some comments made about the efficacy of the tools for student communication. A Stark Middle School teacher shared:

I can tell you, honestly, that I am frustrated with we are so savvy with My Big Campus, the Bundles, the news, but the kids will come back from three days out and say, ‘What did I miss?’ ‘What do you mean, what did you miss? It’s (sic) all right there?’

This is an example of a digital tool use, but in an ineffective manner. The teacher saw the potential for improving communication and student access, and invested time to use it for sharing classroom information. However, either through a lack of communication or clear expectations for the use of the technology, the students were not doing their part to access the information in this new format. The technology did not make the act of communicating with students more effective.

Administrators cited eLearning days as a major catalyst for effecting teacher beliefs and providing time for professional development to meet their needs. One administrator shared,

“Our eLearning Days have been very useful as our students learn to manage their time, work at their own pace, and submit electronically while teachers have had professional development tailored to their needs.”

Administrators report that the devices have resulted in teachers and students becoming more efficient in their respective roles. “We have seen increased teacher and student proficiency in using the technology.” During classroom observations each month, the administrators and

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 98 coaches claim that are seeing an increase in the effective use of technology among teachers and students. They attribute this increase to the experience of participating in an eLearning Day.

ISTET Standard Four. The topic of digital citizenship is one that teachers and administrators felt needed more attention at Stark Middle School. The ISTET Standard Four data on Table 4.7 shows that this was another area where teachers were divided as far as consistent coverage of digital citizenship topics. While 48% of teachers said they covered digital information and safety multiple times a week, 36% said they talked about it once a month or less.

When it came to responsible social interaction using technology, 48% discussed it once a week or more, and 52% reported discussing it once a month or less (12% reported “never”). The means for ISTET Standard Four were consistent, but there were some interesting findings of note. Teachers with 31 years of teaching or more reported they covered these topics the least

(M=1.89, SD=.19), and language arts teachers (M=3.44, SD=.78)) had a higher mean than the overall average (M=2.71, SD=.91) for this trait within ISTET Standard Four.

Administrators cited examples of lessons during the early part of the year, “Our first two weeks of school were spent with a focus on digital footprints, digital etiquette, Code of Conduct and Internet User Agreement, care of device, and using technology for positive interactions.”

Teachers mentioned these examples as well, but there were few examples given beyond these first two weeks of school. Stark Middle School teachers reported that most of their work was in reaction to student violations, and they felt more proactive work should be put in place. The teachers observed students interacting online regularly, but they did not feel these students were operating with enough consideration and caution.


One teacher shared, “I don’t (sic) think they [students] understand the ramifications...and they are more savvy that we [teachers] are...so that’s scary. They just don't realize how little privacy they have.” This is an example of how the teachers feel a bigger effort needs to be made to educate students about the dangers and pitfalls of their online behaviors.

SAMR Levels. As with Rogers Middle School the SAMR levels were measured during the classroom observations. The highest observed SAMR level was measured within each individual classroom for students and teachers.

Table 4.12

Stark Middle School SAMR Levels (Observed)

Not

Observed

Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition

Students

39% 15% 38% 8% 0%

46% 46% 8% 0%

Teachers

It is very interesting in Table 4.12 that 100% of the teachers were observed on at least one

SAMR level while 39% of students were not at a substitution level. This is consistent with the data for ISTET Standard Three on Table 4.7 where 100% of teachers were observed using technology for instruction while only 46% of the majority of students were observed using devices. Since the learning was heavier on teacherled instruction than studentdirected learning opportunities, there was more opportunity to observe teachers than students.

Summary

Stark Middle School worked to continuously change their professional development offerings in order to better meet the needs of their teachers. There were ISTE areas where a

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 100 majority of teachers reported frequent opportunities for effective learning experiences. These areas were student collaboration, studentuse of devices, use of a learning management system, lecturebased instructional technology, use of internet resources for instruction, and a common vision for effective technology integration. There were also multiple traits where the growth

(and opinions) were more divided. These include opportunities for student creativity, use of

GAFE, use of software to differentiate learning, instruction on digital information/safety and responsible interaction, professional conversations with nondistrict teachers, and following current educational technology research.

While it is positive that Stark Middle School had a team of coaches and teacherleaders involved for ongoing support (Hanover Research, 2014), the majority of their professional development lacked opportunities beyond what Gaible and Burns (2005) described as

Standardized learning. Using their available resources to provide more time for longterm focused small group learning experiences with a blended component used for reflection (Nuthall

& AltonLee, 1993; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Webster & Wright, 2009) would decrease teacher frustration and increase retention.

Examining the comparison of means for the grade levels, years of experience, and subject area across all five ISTET Standards revealed some highlights. Seventh grade teachers had the highest overall mean (M=3.90, SD=.64) and eighth grade teachers had the lowest (M=3.17,

SD=.68). Teachers with 1120 years of experience (M=4.10, SD=.20) had the highest means, and teachers with 31 years of experience had the lowest (M=2.64, SD=.33). It is interesting that the second lowest overall means belonged to teachers with one to two years of experience


(M=2.99, SD=.50). The means for social studies, mathematics, and other were similar, but language arts was the highest (M=3.82, SD=.57).

The focus group interviews revealed that most teachers agreed the professional development offerings were highquality, and they especially valued the teacherleader assistance and the eLearning Day experiences. However, there were still teachers who shared that they needed focused training that was based on instructional strategies and specific to their subject.

They felt they required more time to apply the topics and contextualize them to their own classrooms and instructional style.

Comparison of Schools

While the individual data for the schools provided valuable information, the data took on a new meaning once examined in relation to each other and then as a combined dataset. This section compares and contrasts the data from the survey, observation, and focus groups, and then looks at this same data with the results from both schools combined. There was an examination of the comparison of means for the subgroups: grade levels, years of experience, subject area, and the results from the coding of focus groups for the ten traits of effective professional

development identified in Chapter Two.


Table 4.13

Comparison of Districts by ISTET Standards

1 2

Survey 6

3 4 5

Observed

1


% % % % % %



Students opportunities for creativity or innovation when demonstrating learning both

Rogers MS 5 11 26 53 5

Stark MS 0 25 25 38 13

Rogers MS 0 21 16 58 5

Stark MS 0 4 16 56 24

Rogers MS 16 37 21 21 5

Stark MS 12 40 24 16 8



Students use of Google Apps for Education both

Student use of a learning management system both






Use of resources or research from the internet

(nontextbook) for instruction

Rogers MS 5 11 5 21 58

Stark MS 0 4 4 44 48

Rogers MS 11 32 11 37 11

Stark MS 20 12 28 32 8

Rogers MS 6 0 6 22 67

Stark MS 0 8 24 20 48

Rogers MS 25 13 13 19 31

Stark MS 24 4 4 60 8

Rogers MS 6 35 24 24 12

Stark MS 0 16 24 36 24

Rogers MS 5

Stark MS 0

5

4

16

4

26

12

47

80

Rogers MS 24 29 18 12 18

Stark MS 8 4 28 24 36

8

25

8

Rogers MS 5 0 26 42 26

Stark MS 0 16 0 40 44

(continued)

94

77

59

100

6

23

15

47

38

12

76

46

24

35

23

13

8

25

31



Comparison of Districts by ISTET Standards (continued)






% % % % %

Rogers MS 5 63 16 11 5

Stark MS 4 32 16 48 0

Rogers MS 21 42 21 11 5

Stark MS 12 40 16 32 0

Rogers MS 33 50 11 6 0

Stark MS 20 48 8 24 0

Rogers MS . . . . .

Stark MS . . . . .


1

Rogers MS 53

2

26

3

5

4

16

5

0

Following current research related to educational technology.

Vision of effective technology

Ability to help others develop technology skills

Stark MS

36 28 16 16 4

Rogers MS 1 53 32 11 0

Stark MS 0 64 20 12 4

Rogers MS 0 0 16 74 11

Stark MS 0 4 12 76 8

Rogers MS 5 16 21 37 21

Stark MS 0 4 28 52 16

Promotion of ability to help others develop technology skills

Rogers MS 5 47 5 37 5

Stark MS 0 8 28 48 16

Contribution to the effectiveness of technology integration

Rogers MS 5 0 16 74 5

Stark MS 0 0 12 80 8

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

6

.

.

23

.

.

.

103

7 1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=undecided 4=agree 5=strongly agree


Table 4.14

SAMR Comparison of Schools

SAMR Level Not

Observed

Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition

Rogers MS

Students

Stark MS

Students

%

24

39

%

0

15

%

29

38

%

47

8

%

0

0

Rogers MS

Teachers

Stark MS

Teachers

41

0

6

46

29

46

24

8

0

0


Table 4.15

Overall Comparison of Means for Schools

ISTET 1 ISTET 2 ISTET 3 ISTET 4 ISTET 5 Overall

Rogers MS

(n=19)

M

SD

Stark MS

(n=25)

M

SD

Combined

(n=44)

M

SD

3.18

.78

3.36

.73

3.28

.75

3.56

.97

3.66

.64

3.62

.79

3.57

.95

4.19

.87

3.92

.95

2.26

.79

2.71

.91

2.52

.88

3.07

.63

3.36

.56

3.23

.60

3.13

.82

3.46

.74

3.32

.79


Table 4.16

Comparison of Ten Identified Traits for Effective Professional Development

Trait Rogers MS Stark MS

Trait One Contextualized 6 3

Combined

9


5 10 15


3 2 5


6 3 9


9 9 18


5 7 12

0 1 1


Trait Eight

Trait Nine

Tiered/Leveled

Offerings

Varied Delivery

Methods

Trait Ten

Student Learning

Focus

1

3

5

5

2

6

6

5

11


Table 4.17

Combined Grade Level Comparison of Means

Grade

Level

Sixth

( n =14)

ISTET 1

Seventh

( n =16)

M 3.36

SD .67

ISTET 2

3.66

.77

ISTET 3

3.89

.78

ISTET 4 ISTET 5

2.69

.98

3.19

.45

Eighth

( n =14)

M

SD

3.52

.57

M 2.93

SD .91

3.73

.93

3.46

.66

4.35

.69

3.45

1.16

2.65

.90

2.19

.71

3.58

.65

2.88

.48

Total

( n =44)

M 3.28

SD .75

3.62

.79

3.92

.95

2.51

.88

3.23

.60

Overall

3.36

.73

3.57

.75

2.98

.78

3.31

.79


Table 4.18

Combined Years of Experience Comparison of Means


12 years

(n=3)

M

3.22

35 years

(n =3)

SD .84

M 4.11

SD .69

610 years

(n =6)

M

3.00

1120 years

(n =16)

SD .94

M 3.22

SD .72

2130 years

(n =11)

M 3.33

SD .71

31+ years

(n =5)

M 3.20

SD .69

ISTET 2

3.07

.23

3.67

.83

3.85

.63

3.53

1.01

3.65

.58

3.88

.87

ISTET 3

3.67

.33

4.67

.58

3.89

.89

4.17

.83

4.09

.60

2.50

1.28

ISTET 4

2.00

.67

2.67

1.00

2.44

1.22

2.69

.96

2.63

.75

2.00

.41

ISTET 5

Overall

3.00

.44

4.00

.29

3.19

.25

3.18

.49

3.47

.73

2.63

.59

2.99

.50

3.82

.68

3.27

.79

3.36

.80

3.43

.67

2.74

.77

(continued)

108


Combined Years of Experience Comparison of Means (continued)


Total

(n =44)

M 3.28

SD .75

ISTET 2

3.62

.79

ISTET 3

3.92

.95

ISTET 4

2.52

.88

ISTET 5

3.23

.60

Overall

3.31

.79

109


Table 4.19

Combined Subject Area Comparison of Means

Subject

Lang. Arts

(n =12)

M

SD

Math

(n =8)

M

SD

Science

(n =2)

M

SD

Social Studies

(n =10)

M

SD

Other

(n =12)

M

SD

Total

(n =44)

M

SD

ISTET 1

3.25

.87

2.88

.56

3.67

.94

3.30

.48

3.50

.88

3.28

.75

ISTET 2

3.88

.59

3.04

.85

3.50

.71

3.86

.71

3.57

.89

3.62

.79

ISTET 3

4.06

.96

3.96

.55

3.67

.00

4.52

.61

3.31

1.15

3.92

.94

ISTET 4

ISTET 5

Overall

2.64

1.02

2.04

.97

3.00

1.41

2.70

.73

2.47

.73

2.52

.88

3.20

.47

3.23

.23

3.33

.94

3.30

.52

3.19

.92

3.23

.60

3.41

.78

3.03

.63

3.43

.80

3.54

.61

3.21

.91

3.31

.79


ISTET Standard Five. The selfdirected aspect of this standard with regards to discussion of teaching methods and student learning with professionals outside of district was one where Stark teachers were divided. However, there were still more teachers at Stark Middle

School who felt that they were active with these conversations compared to what was reported by Rogers Middle School teachers. There was a similar divide among teachers at Stark and

Rogers Middle School when it came to following current research related to educational technology, but there was a greater difference between teachers at Rogers when it came to their perceived ability (and promotion of the ability) to help other teachers. This is likely due to the fact that Stark has identified teacher leaders to provide additional assistance, and Rogers relies on coaches.

Stark Middle School teachers had an overall higher mean for this standard (M=3.36,

SD=.56) than Rogers Middle School (M=3.07, SD=.63). The eighth grade teachers and teachers with 31 or more years of experience at both schools had the lowest mean, but the other results were mixed. When it comes to the ten identified traits for effective PD (Table 4.16), the only strong trait the schools had in common was consideration of teacher beliefs. Stark Middle

School had the highest overall mean for this standard, and their strength within this area was offering professional development that was jobembedded. This is likely because they had held several eLearning Days and Rogers (up to the time of this study) had not. Teachers at Stark were appreciative of these dedicated days because they had time to absorb, discuss, and apply new knowledge (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Traits with few responses for both schools were reflection, focused content, and varied levels.

Overall, Stark Middle School took their support a step further by adding more coaches


(and sooner), and creating the teacherleader role for added support. Rogers Middle School provided a range of professional development experiences to the teachers who were actively seeking new learning. Both schools added an instructional coach for added teacher support.

Stark Middle School was the first school to establish the new technology within the school’s learning culture by holding eLearning days where students worked from home, and teachers had entire days devoted to professional learning.

ISTET Standard One. The survey and observation data from the schools were similar for ISTET Standard One (creativity in student learning). It is worth noting that both schools had evidence of a divide between teachers when it came to opportunities for students to use creativity to demonstrate learning. It it is also notable that eighth grade teachers and mathematics teachers at both schools had the lowest means for ISTET Standard One. Stark Middle School teachers had a higher overall mean (M=3.36, SD=.73) than Rogers Middle School teachers (M=3.18,

SD=.78).

ISTET Standard Two. The data from ISTE Standard Two (digital learning experiences) showed many similarities among teachers. There was a common divide for the reported (survey) use of Google Apps for Education among teachers, with less than 24% of teachers observed allowing studentuse of the tools. There was a large difference between the schools when it came to the observation of the majority of students using their devices. Rogers

Middle School had evidence in 76% of classrooms, while this trait was only observed in 46% of the classrooms at Stark Middle School. Stark Middle School also had 58% of teachers who reported that the majority of students use devices daily compared to 48% at Rogers during the

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 113 same time period. There were no similarities within this standard for grade level and years of experience, but language arts teachers at both schools had the highest means.

The comparison of SAMR data (Table 4.14) showed that in a large portion of classrooms at both schools (24% at Rogers MS, 39% at Stark MS) students were not observed at any SAMR level. However, the Rogers Middle School classrooms had higher student SAMR levels were overall. In 47% of observations, the students were observed at a Modification level compared to

8% at Stark Middle School.

There was also a difference when it came to the trait related to using data from assessments to customize learning. While this was a trait where there was a divide among teachers at Rogers Middle School, this was observed in 25% of classrooms at Rogers compared to 8% of classrooms at Stark Middle School. Overall, Stark Middle School had a higher mean for ISTET Standard Two with 3.66 compared to Rogers Middle School with 3.56.

ISTET Standard Three. There was a major difference within ISTE Standard Three

(modeling digital age work) when it came to the use of technology for instruction. This trait was observed in 100% of classrooms at Stark Middle School, but only 59% of the classrooms at

Rogers Middle School. The survey results were also higher for Stark teachers (80% daily) compared to Rogers teachers (59%). While the use of digital tools to communicate with parents was a trait where Rogers teachers were divided, this was observed in 23% of the classrooms at

Stark Middle School compared to only 6% at Rogers Middle School. While 44% of Stark teachers reported that they use digital resources daily (26% at Rogers MS), 94% of the Rogers

Middle School classroom had evidence of this trait compared to 77% of Stark Middle School classrooms.


The SAMR data on Table 4.14 is dramatically different for the two schools. While 100% of the teachers at Stark Middle School were at least a Substitution SAMR level, 41% of Rogers

Middle School teachers were not observed at any SAMR level. Overall, 53% of Rogers teachers were at Augmentation or higher compared to 46% of Stark teachers at the same level. However,

24% of Rogers teachers were at Modification compared to 8% for Stark teachers. Rogers Middle

School had more teachers at a higher level, but many more (than Stark Middle School) who were not even at Substitution. Based only on SAMR, Rogers Middle School had a larger divide than

Stark Middle School among teachers.

Overall, Stark Middle School had a higher mean for ISTET Standard Three with 4.19

(SD=.87) compared to Rogers Middle School with 3.57 (SD=.95) The means for grade levels and years of experience was consistent between the schools (sixth grade was highest/eighth grade lowest), and teachers with 31 years of experience or more had the lowest mean.

ISTET Standard Four. Table 4.13 shows that Stark Middle School teachers reported more frequent use than Rogers teachers within every trait within ISTE Standard Four (digital citizenship). The trait for instruction on digital information and technology safety was one where Stark teachers were divided, and there were 68% of Rogers teachers who reported covering this topic with students once a month or never while 48% of Stark teachers reported covering the topic multiple times a week. Evidence of expectations for responsible studentuse of technology were also much higher at Stark Middle School (23% of classrooms) compared to

Rogers Middle School (6% of classrooms).

Stark Middle School had a higher mean for for ISTET Standard Four (M=2.71, SD=.91), but, overall, the results were mixed. The only similarity was the eighth grade which had the the

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 115 lowest mean score for both schools. Both schools had means across subgroups that indicate a low level of conversations around digital citizenship and online etiquette.

Combined Dataset of Both Schools

As discussed in Chapter Three, the datasets were combined and analyzed as one group to examine overall patterns. Table 4.15 has a row for the overall means for each individual ISTET standard, Table 4.16 contains a column for the overall identified traits, Table 4.17, 4.18, and 4.19 show the combined comparison of means for grade level, years of experience, and subject areas.

Based on this information, the strongest overall educator was seventh grade teacher (M=3.57,

SD=.75) with three to five years of experience (M=3.82, SD=.68) in a social studies classroom

(M=3.54, SD=.61). The ISTET Standard with the highest overall mean was ISTET Standard

Three (M=3.92, SD=.95). This standard covers instructional tools for teachers, and it was expressed during focus groups that these tools were a priority when it came to professional development opportunities.

Chapter Summary

Across all five ISTET Standards (and among each individual ISTET Standard), Stark

Middle School had the highest mean. Administrators and coaches at Stark Middle School made it a priority to offer learning experiences for teachers that were jobembedded (eLearning Days, teacher leaders), and based on data (classroom walkthroughs). This resulted in relatively more even experiences across the Stark Middle School staff of teachers. Rogers Middle School focused on teacher beliefs and contextualizing training for those teachers who were interested in moving forward. As a result, they had a group of teachers further along (relative to the SAMR model), but they also had what appeared to be a larger gap among the overall staff.


While Stark Middle School had the highest levels of reported use on the ISTET questions, there was more evidence of studentdirected learning at Rogers Middle School when it came to the classroom observations. The observed SAMR levels for students, use of devices for student learning, use of GAFE, and a learning management system were all higher at Rogers

Middle School. Within eight of the 11 observed traits from the Classroom Observation Tool,

Rogers Middle School had a higher percentage of observed use.

It is possible that Stark Middle School teachers overreported their use of technology on the survey in comparison to Rogers Middle School teachers. The administrators at both schools had created expectations for teachers when it came to integrating technology, but the Stark

Middle School administrators shared more examples of visiting the classrooms and observing use. The Stark teachers may have felt more urgency for using technology than the Rogers

Middle School teachers and reported higher frequency of use on the survey as a result. Are the administrators at Stark Middle School doing a better job praising staff for their work or providing data to demonstrate growth? As cited in Chapter Two, a teacher’s selfefficacy has an effect on student learning (Wheatley, 2002). While the Rogers Middle School teachers may be further along with regards to using technology to empower students to learn, they may not realize it. If the administrators have not celebrated their growth, then they may not feel that their increased technology use is having a positive effect on student learning.

Finally, it is important to consider one major distinction the student devices at Rogers

Middle School were launched a full school year before the devices at Stark Middle School. The

Rogers teachers had one more year of experience and training. This could explain why they had

more evidence of studentdirected learning experiences in comparison to Stark Middle School.


CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

In the year and a half since this study was proposed, the urgency of this topic has not subsided (C. Dodson, personal communication, November 12, 2015). Many districts are still taking steps towards increased technology integration, and many are still underestimating the magnitude of the instructional shift needed for success. The best practices for preparing teachers for technology integration are still largely undefined, and it is unclear what impact the increased technology is having on student learning and instruction (Sharwood, 2015).

The focus of this dissertation was to identify effective practices for creating and implementing training to assist educators in incorporating technology into their classrooms.

Much of the training offered to educators is insufficient in meeting adultlearner needs, and, therefore, is often rejected (Sawchuck, 2010).


The research questions addressed in this study were:

R

1

How did two Indiana school districts that won the IDOE Innovation and Learning

Grant prepare their middle school teachers to integrate technology?

R

2

R

3

How closely does the instruction within these schools align with the ISTET

Standards?

How did teachers at these school describe their professional development, and how closely do these descriptions reflect the ten identified characteristics of effective professional development from Chapter Two?


Teacher Preparation (R

1

)

Both schools had similar approaches to their professional development. They recognized there was a need to increase the amount of support within the school, and they brought on coaches to help teachers full time. Research indicates that having coaches for modeling and mentoring can result in higher levels of implementation of technology into instructional methods

(Hanover Research, 2014).

However, the majority of the professional development offered appears to be cascade or a standardized format. Gaible and Burns (2005) found that this works well as a means of introducing new content, but a single session approach is unlikely to result in a change in instruction. While both of these schools are highlyregarded, it became apparent that there are some researchbased strategies they could add that would increase efficacy.

Increase time for reflection. Throught the lens of Transformational Learning Theory, learning without reflection will not be retained for adult learners (Dirkz, 1998). The learning is most likely to be retained when teachers are given time to apply new knowledge, apply in their classrooms, and then discuss the outcomes (Tillema, 2000). This requires focused and longterm offerings (Webster & Wright, 2009). There were only five total examples of reflection shared during focus groups at these two schools, and these examples were informal (not officially part of the professional development time) in nature.

Increase teacher voice to focus content. Both schools had examples of teachers who were frustrated by the number of different tools and ideas they are presented with during trainings. While the administrators and coaches mentioned asking teachers about potential topics, there were not any examples of input shared by the teachers. Professional learning

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 119 experiences for teachers must be relevant to the problems they face (Gaible & Burns, 2005).

This is most likely to happen when teachers are given a voice in the planning process. The frustration expressed by teachers at both schools is also an indicator that there need to be fewer topics presented (Opfer & Pedder, 2011).

Vary delivery methods. Neither of these schools had evidence of sitebased or selfdirected learning opportunities for teachers. At this time, they also did not mention access to online resources or blended learning experiences (Schrum & Levin, 2013). Adding these modes would provide a more meaningful learning experience for a greater variety of learners.

There was more teacher use of technology observed at Stark Middle School (100% observed at Stark compared to 59% at Rogers Middle School), but less student use (76% at

Rogers compared to 46% at Stark Middle School). As mentioned in Chapter Four, this can be explained by the presence of more studentdirected learning at Rogers Middle School. Rogers

Middle School had a large number of classrooms where the presence of SAMR for teachers was unobserved (41%), but they had 47% of students at a Modification level compared to 8% at Stark

Middle School. Rogers Middle School may have had a lower percentage of teachers observed because in more of those classrooms the teachers were not actively sharing information via lecture or discussion. When studentdirected learning occurs, there is a greater chance of use and integration in the classroom (Hanover Research, 2014).

The approach to teacher training was similar at both schools when it came to training curriculum. Both districts began by training teachers how to use a learning management system and Google Apps for Education. While there were not formal questions asked about the training curriculum, Rogers Middle School teachers mentioned student tools more often in focus groups

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 120 than Stark Middle School teachers. Stark teachers and administrators, on the other hand, spoke more often about accountability and expectations for teachers using instructional technology.

The difference in training focus is one explanation for this outcome.

ISTET Standards (R

2

)

The second question was an examination of how closely the instruction at these two schools aligned with the ISTET standards. There is difficulty in determining a school's proximity to mastering the standards since the ISTE organization does not publish any metrics that establish the amount of time they expect these standards to occur in a classroom. However, the ISTET standards did provide a common structure for comparing and analyzing the current state of technology within these schools. One contribution of this study was the operationalization of these standards. ISTET Standards One through Four should be viewed as the output or result of the professional development from ISTET Standard Five.

The administrators and coaches at these two schools did not mention during focus groups that they had used the ISTET standards as a basis for planning instruction of professional learning experiences at the beginning of their implementation process, but the ISTE Standards have gained in recognition in the time since this study took place. The Indiana Office of eLearning has placed an emphasis on the ISTE Standards, and this has resulted in conversations among educators about instruction that were not necessarily taking place before these standards emerged (C. Dodson, personal communication, November 12, 2015) . For example, the concept of digital citizenship (ISTET Standard Four) was not one that many schools felt responsible for covering in the past, but this view has changed in recent years. In Indiana, developing digital

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 121 leadership among students is such a priority that the Indiana Office of eLearning now sponsors an annual student conference to explore the topic.

In the regards to the first four standards, the majority of the analysis (comparison of means by ISTET Standard) used the ISTET Survey data, and, overall, Stark Middle School had higher means for every ISTET Standard. The analysis of the instruction using the standards revealed several gaps among the teachers in their reported use (survey). Identifying and understanding this divide is important for school administrators so they can provide support that assists teacher growth. Therefore, as a tool to identify and measure teacher growth, the first four

ISTET Standards were quite useful.

It is worth noting that Stark Middle School had higher means on the ISTET Standards than Rogers Middle School and their professional development was also more closely aligned to the ten identified traits of effective professional development. While there was little evidence of some of the traits at either school, Stark Middle School separated themselves from Rogers

Middle School by holding eLearning Days and creating teacherleader positions. This translated into more instances of teacher beliefs respected through dedicated time for learning, and more opportunities for jobembedded learning experiences from colleagues.

However, does having higher means on the ISTET Standards mean that the Stark teachers are offering more effective learning experiences to their students? This study does not definitively answer that question, but as mentioned in Chapter Four, there was evidence of more studentdirected learning at Rogers Middle Schools based on the student and teacher SAMR levels. Studentdirected learning is consistent with higher levels of engagement and retention of new information (Hanover Research, 2014). However, the evidence of studentdirected learning

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 122 did not emerge through the lens of the ISTET Standards it was discovered when examining the

SAMR Level data. Since the Rogers Middle School teachers were observed performing less direct instruction, it resulted in lower means on some of the ISTET standards.

ISTET Standard Five does not appear to provide a great deal of specific guidance for teachers when it comes to their professional learning experiences. The substandards reference selfdirected learning opportunities and being part of a larger community of learners, but there are very few specific examples that mirror the research on adult learning and professional development that is found within the ten effective traits of professional development from

Chapter Two (International Society for Technology in Education, 2014).

An examination of the ISTEC Standards for coaches on the ISTE website (International

Society for Technology in Education, 2014) provided some examples of basing training on student learning and acting as an advocate for studentdirected learning opportunities, but the language used stays firmly on the side of technology. This technologyforward emphasis contradicts the findings of this study. Teachers at these two schools were interested in improving instructional strategies that they were already actively using. The professional development standards in ISTET Standard Five would be more accessible (and more accurately reflect teacher beliefs) if they framed them around effective instructional strategies instead.

Ten Identified Traits for Effective Professional Development (R

3

)

The first part of research question three asked how educators at these schools described their professional development. A great deal of reporting and analysis of the professional development at both of these schools was already covered in Chapter Four. Teachers at both schools described the PD as highquality, and they were complementary towards the coaches

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 123 who delivered the content, but the staff at both schools expressed frustration with the training process as well. The praise and complaints were easily identified within the ten identified traits for effective professional development from the literature review in Chapter Two.

The last part of research question three asked how closely the teacher descriptions of their training aligned with the ten identified traits of effective professional development from Chapter

Two. In order to examine this, the transcripts from the teacher and administrator focus groups were transcribed and coded by trait to see if there was evidence among these two schools to discover if the identified traits were effective in describing their responses. The number of instances of each trait were identified by the expert panel as described in Chapter Three. Among the combined data from the two schools, the traits that were most often cited were professional development experiences that considered teacher beliefs (18 examples), were embedded within job responsibilities (15), measured teacher growth (12), and focused on student learning (11).

Examining the teachers’ descriptions of their training experiences through the filter of these traits provided some meaningful conclusions.

Consider existing teacher beliefs. It is consistent with Transformational Learning

Theory that teacher beliefs are important in relation to integrating new practices utilizing technology. Many of the expectations school leaders have for student devices involve learning experiences that are collaborative and studentdirected in nature. As a result, the professional development offered by schools often focuses on tools and strategies that emphasize these instructional traits. However, if a teacher’s overall instructional style is lecture, they will likely not find professional development with an emphasis on collaborative tools helpful. Instead, teachers are looking for learning experiences that will make them more effective using the

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 124 instructional practices they already value and use (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). If the training matches a teacher at their current level of belief, there is a much greater chance for moving that teacher towards instructional practices outside of their comfort zone (Desimone, 2009).

Schools often begin their integration process by training teachers on how to use a learning management system such as Canvas or Google Classroom. These tools emphasize increased communication, collaboration, and selfdirected/blended learning experiences for students. If a teacher does not currently offer collaborative or studentdirected learning experiences in their classroom, then there is a small chance of retention. Teachers are most likely to accept learning opportunities that match their beliefs (Raths, 2001; Opfer & Pedder,

2011). Teachers must be met at their level of need. Through this lens, the professional development is less about integrating technology and more about reimagining instruction. As seen in the results from Chapter Four, schools who attempt to do both at the same time will likely see mixed results and a divide among the teachers.

One possible approach for schools is to begin by offering professional development opportunities that match the dominant instructional practices among their teachers. If teacherdirected learning is dominant, it would make sense to begin by training teachers on tools that will make them more effective lecturers or presenters. There are a multitude of tools that allow teachers to create or even convert existing PowerPoint slides into a product that can be shared online. These tools also make it easier/more powerful for teachers to check for understanding and create individualized experiences for students. This approach clearly matches teacher beliefs, and results in new learning that can be applied almost immediately within their current practices. This approach results in shortterm wins, and less opportunity for teacher

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 125 rejection. This does not mean that teachers do not need to change their instructional style at some point towards a learnerdirected model (Hanover Research, 2014), but meeting the teacher at their current level will allow administrators and coaches to initially demonstrate the benefits.

Another approach, and the one used by the two schools in this study, is to focus on creating a sense of urgency among teachers. Rogers and Stark Middle School administrators and coaches addressed teacher beliefs by continuously providing examples of how access to information has changed due to the abundance of technology in the world today. The administrators and coaches attempted to expose the differences in learning behaviors among students today in comparison to when the teachers were in school. They used this sense of urgency as a catalyst to introduce new technologies for more innovative instructional practices such as a learning management system. This approach takes much longer since these tools are often more complicated, and involves adding instructional elements not currently valued by a majority of the teachers. However, for the teachers that buyin, there is often a huge step forward towards studentdirected and engaging learning opportunities.

Transformational Learning Theory posits that teachers examine all new learning through a lens that is constructed from their experiences and current knowledge base (Mezirow, 1991).

Based on this research, the most successful experience for teachers would involve a combination of both approaches to professional learning. As with students, learning needs to be differentiated to allow for a variety of learning styles (Nuthall & AltonLee, 1993; Opfer & Pedder, 2011) and provide time for reflection/application (Gaible & Burns, 2005). In a perfect situation, administrators would use a combination of coaching support and measurement of teacher growth to determine a sequence of learning for individual teachers. However, the most important criteria

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 126 for determining offerings needs to be the current level of teacher belief (Raths, 2001; Opfer &

Pedder, 2011). If the offering does not match a teacher’s current instructional level, then the administrator or coach must affect this belief by establishing a sense of urgency and/or a focus on the benefits of the instructional strategy and not just the use of technology.

Embed professional development. Both of the schools within this study provided professional development experiences that were jobembedded. The most successful examples of this were the additions of fulltime instructional coaches to support teachers through coteaching, modeling, and individualized learning experiences. The workshop method for professional development does not provide enough opportunities to get teachers started in their own classrooms ( Plair, 2008). These coaches contextualized the tools and strategies for individual teachers for working alongside them as they were teaching. Additionally, by following up with teachers during the day, they provided repeated exposures to the content to assist in assimilation (Nuthall & AltonLee, 1993).

Another example of embedding professional development was the addition of eLearning

Days by both schools. These were days when the teachers prepared curriculum for the students to access at home, and the teachers spent the school day participating in or leading professional learning experiences. These eLearning Days were cited by teachers and administrators at both schools as major moments for their initiatives. They shared there was an increase in teacher demand for professional development in the weeks leading up to the eLearning Days, and, as a result, an increase in use afterwards.

The integration of technology is a long process, and there are often not clear “wins” for the teachers. These eLearning Days were clear “lines in the sand” for teachers, and they also

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 127 provided an event to celebrate for the entire staff. This large change in the school schedule elevated these initiatives by demonstrating an administrator commitment to changing instructional practices. Student learning could not possibly be successful unless the teachers adapted their instruction to fit a blended environment. The administrators also demonstrated a commitment to the initiative and jobembedded training by providing time for teachers to learn during regular work hours, and not expecting all learning to occur before or after school.

Make decisions based on data. Rogers and Stark Middle School had practices in place to measure the teacher growth, and these practices were cited often during focus groups. Some of these practices were as simple as a survey sent to teachers after a training, but they also had some examples of taking the measurement a step further. Administrators reported doing classroom walkthroughs where they looked for implementation and levels of proficiency. They used this data to plan for future trainings and followup with individual teachers. At Stark

Middle School, teachers knew this was part of the process, and they were prepared to receive the feedback as an area for focused growth and not an example of ineffective instruction.

Another approach used by Stark Middle School was to create opportunities for teacherleaders to provide support across grade levels. These teachers were available for help and tips before and after school, but they were also involved in the planning process. Allowing for teacher input for learning opportunities and measuring progress results in a greater likelihood that the learning experience will result in an instructional transformation (Opfer & Pedder, 2011) .

It is equally important to celebrate growth individually and across the entire staff. This occurs when the school is tracking growth in an effective and meaningful way.

Focus on student learning. With devices, digital tools, wireless access points, and other

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 128 complicated aspects of integrating technology, student learning can easily get lost. The initiative worked best for these two schools when they kept their focus on the student and their needs. A student learning focus meant that professional learning experiences had a clear deliverable that teachers could use immediately with their students. This could only occur when the tools and strategies were contextualized for the subjects and grade levels by coaches and administrators.

Additionally, a change in beliefs and practices is more likely to occur when student growth data is used to measure the progress ( Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002).

It is also important to link tools to learning/instructional strategies and to resist the urge for showing teachers a series of “cool toys.” With these two schools, the teachers were overwhelmed with the number of tools. They responded positively to the tools that allowed them to enhance communication with parents, check for understanding, access prior knowledge, individualize instruction, close reading, research, and prepare students for standardized tests.

They also expressed a desire for coaches and administrators to curate choices of tools for each strategy. In some cases, they felt as if they were given too many options, and they did not have the time to narrow down the choices. The best approach for administrators or coaches is to focus learning experiences to teachers by only offering a select number of tools wrapped around a specific instructional/learning strategy that will affect student learning.

Implications for Policy

As schools are taking steps towards adding student devices, they are committing themselves to spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on student devices. However, leaders are often are not increasing resources for the professional development of teachers (Sawchuck,

2010). As a result, teachers and administrators are asked to make major changes without the

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 129 training to support the shift. During an interview with Candice Dodson, the Director of eLearning at the Indiana Department of Education, she shared that she would like to see district leaders allocate time and resources for professional development when they plan for the cost of student devices (C. Dodson, personal communication, November 12, 2015). Even if adding cost for teacher professional development requires the district to purchase fewer student devices, this study demonstrates that it would be a wise decision. Committing to measurable professional learning that is jobembedded and addresses teacher beliefs/student learning is not cheap.

Whether a district provides support internally or with a consultant, they will need to allocate resources towards substitute teachers for professional development/planning days, additional staff (coaches), and stipends for teacher leaders.

Implications for Practice

As stated above, administrators should consider offering professional development based on effective instructional strategies and the dominant instructional strategies of the staff. Too often schools approach training for technology as something separate from “regular” teaching.

In fact, many times this training is led by technology directors or other noneducators. Instead, administrators and coaches need to approach this training from an educator perspective that emphasizes clear student learning outcomes. Professional development offerings must also move away from the before or after school workshop model. Districts must embrace teacher support that is contextualized for the subject area and individualized for the individual. This can only be achieved by adding instructional coaches and/or teacherleaders.

There is also an implication for instructional practices that emphasize teacherdirected instruction/lecture. The concept of improving instruction through the use of technology is a

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 130 contradiction. The focus must be on improving student learning through the use of technology.

There can be an emphasis on the teacherdirected activities that occur when technology is available, but this ignores the greatest advantage of having student devices for learning access to information. In the past, the teacher was the main source of information for student learning, and this made lecture and notetaking a priority. As information has become increasingly digital it has become more accessible. Within a classroom with student devices, the role of the teacher must move from informationprovider, to informationfacilitator. When a student has the ability to access new information in more authentic ways, the teacher can focus more on application and individualized student demonstration of mastery. Teachers within this learning environment who still play the role of informationprovider are limiting the potential impact of the technology, and often creating frustrating experiences for techsavvy students who are not allowed to use their device for learning.

It is not unusual for districts to approach learning experiences for teachers from the same angle as they do for their students. Most administrators were once teachers, and their teaching methods as administrators likely mirror those they used in their classrooms. According to

Transformational Learning Theory, teachers look at new information through a lens created from their own learning and experiences (Mezirow, 1991). It is especially important for administrator and coaches to consider this when creating learning opportunities around technology integration.

Many experienced teachers may believe that technology is a possible detriment to student learning. Every learning opportunity will need to consider the disposition of the teachers if there is to be any hope for assimilation. Those administrators and coaches who are creating the learning experiences may not be aware of the concepts of Transformational Learning Theory. It

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 131 would be wise for the state education departments and educator professional organizations to make it a priority to cover these concepts within publications and conferences.

Limitations

It is encouraging that many results from this study aligned with findings from the literature review. However, it is important to note that this was a case study, and the purpose was not to generalize or apply findings on a large scale. Another limitation was the length of the classroom observations. Classrooms were only observed once and for only five to ten minutes which may not be representative of teachers’ instructional practices. Finally, there were very low sample sizes for certain demographics, which does not allow for a reliable analysis with sample sizes this small.

Suggestions for Future Research

While this case study provided notable conclusions, there are other methods involving larger sample sizes that could be explored to provide information that could applied. First, it would be useful to use the methods of this study multiple times over a longer time frame. This would allow researchers more perspective on growth and efficacy of the professional learning experiences. It would also be wise to link classroom observation data to the teacher who completed the survey.

Since the findings of this study emphasized matching learning experiences to effective instructional practices, it would also be interesting to explore these practices more closely. If a district has strong instructional practices, is there a greater chance for successful technology integration? If so, would it make more sense for a district to provide professional development focused on studentdirected learning (collaboration, research, creativity) before introducing

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 132 instructional technology?

Conclusion

When it comes to education, the golden currency is time. Measuring and maximizing the impact any initiative has on student learning must be considered especially with introducing new technology. Teacher beliefs regarding technology integration are often scattered, and effective professional development will only occur when those offering the learning experiences have planned sufficiently.

Considering technology integration as a contextual topic in itself for training is a common, yet often unsuccessful strategy (Sawchuck, 2010). While there are some introductory steps with classroom integration (learning management system, interactive whiteboards, Google

Apps for Education), it is important to move the teacher past a focus on the actual technology, and facilitate discussion towards contextualizing use within their own classroom and curriculum.

The contextualization comes from their grade level and subject area, and not from the fact that they are using technology. The sooner the teacher begins to see the technology as “one more tool” to assist with instruction and curriculum and not a “special event,” the better.

The case study of these two schools revealed some of the creative and engaging experiences that are taking place. These blended learning experiences with student devices were valued, overall, by the teachers and students. However, even for two of the most widely recognized schools in the state, the process was not an easy one. These initiatives work best when the districts dedicate a significant amount of time and resources to preparing teachers.

This means designing and offering professional development that considers teacher beliefs/instructional practices. The learning experiences need to be jobembedded with multiple

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 133 layers of support from coaches or other teacher leaders. The outcomes for the learning experiences need to be measurable and communicated clearly to teachers. Finally, all professional learning experiences regarding technology need to be designed with the student and their learning as the emphasis. There is no doubt that technology can have a positive effect on teaching and student learning, but districts must be willing to commit to a great deal of time and resources. There are a number of variables that must be managed successfully by the district or else the distractions can easily outweigh any potential educational benefits.


REFERENCES

1994: “Today”: “What is the Internet, Anyway?” [Video file]. Retrieved from http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUs7iG1mNjI

Assimilation. (n.d.). In MerriamWebster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/assimilate

Bandura, A. (1994). Selfefficacy. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior , 4 , 7181.

Bennett, S. S. & Maton, K. K. (2010). Beyond the 'digital natives' debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students' technology experiences. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning , 26 (5), 321331.

Brown, C. C., & Czerniewicz, L. L. (2010). Debunking the 'digital native': beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (5),

357369.

Buckingham, M. (2006). Great leading. Leadership Excellence, 23 (6), 8.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26 , 499–531.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 , 947–967.

Creswell, J.W. (2014) Research design. United States of America: Sage Publications, Inc.

Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teacher’s professional development:

Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38 (3), 181199.


Dirkx, J. (1998). Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: An overview.

PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning (7) , 114.

Eaker, R., DuFour, R. & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting Started: Reculturing schools to become professional learning communities. Bloomington: National Education Service.

Elmore, R.F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational

Review, 126.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 2539.

Ertmer, P.A. & OttenbreitLeftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. JRTE, 42 (3), 255284.

Fairlie, R.W. & Robinson, J. (2013). Experimental evidence on the effects of home computers on academic achievement among schoolchildren. Retrieved from http://www.npc.umich.edu /publications/working_papers/

Forte, A., Humphreys, M. & Park, T. (2012). Grassroots professional development: How teachers use Twitter. Proceedings of the AAAI International Conference on Weblogs and

Social Media (ICWSM). Dublin, Ireland.

Gaible, E. & Burns, M. (2005). Using technology to train teachers: Appropriate uses of ICT for teacher professional development in developing countries. Retrieved from http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.13.html

Garet, M.S., Porter, M.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F. & Yoon, K.S. (2001) What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.

American Educational Research Journal , 38 , (4), 915945.


Garrison, D.K. & Kanuka, H. (2004). Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of

Computing in Higher Education, 15 (2). 2139.

Gu, X., Zhu, Y. & Guo, X. (2013). Meeting the “digital natives”: Understanding the acceptance of technology in classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (1), 392–402.

Guskey, T.R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development.

Educational Leadership , 4551.

Hanover Research (2014). Professional Development for Technology Integration. District

Administration Practice. Retrieved from: https://ts.madison.k12.wi.us/files/techsvc/Professional%20Development%20for%20Tech nology%20Integration.pdf

Hedberg, J.G. (2011). Towards a disruptive pedagogy: Changing classroom practice with technologies and digital content. Educational Media International 48 (1), 116.

Herold, Benjamin. (2014). Big changes coming to Los Angeles’ 1:1 computing effort. Education

Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2014/06/big_changes_coming_to_los_ ange.html

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 55 , 223252.

Hramiak, A., Boulton, H., Irwin, B. (2009). Trainee teachers’ use of blogs as private reflections for professional development. L earning, Media and Technology, 34 , 259269.

Hooker, M. (2008). Models and best practices in teacher professional development. Retrieved

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 137 from: http://www.gesci.org/old/files/docman/Teacher_Professional_Development_Models.pdf

Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy teachers’ perceptions of professional development that increases integration of technology into literacy instruction. Technology, Pedagogy, and

Education, 21 (1), 3756.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2014) Retrieved from: https://www.iste.org/standards

Kadijevich, D.M. (2012). TPCK framework: Assessing teachers’ knowledge and designing courses for their professional development. British Journal of Educational Technology,

43 (1), 2830.

Lawless, K.A. & Pellegrino, J.W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research , 77 (4), 575614.

Martin, W., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T. & Culp, K. (2010). Connecting instructional technology professional development to teacher and student outcomes.

JRTE , 43 (1), 5374.

Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality?

University students' use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56 (2), 429–440.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, (74), 512.

Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Nagel, D. (2014). Spending on instructional tech to reach 19 billion within 5 years. Retrieved

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 138 from:https://thejournal.com/articles/2014/06/11/spendingoninstructionaltechtoreach1

9billionwithin5years.aspx

Nuthall, G. & AltonLee, A. (1993). Predicting learning from student experience of teaching: A theory of student knowledge construction in classrooms. American

Educational Research Journal, 30 (4), 799840.

O’Brien, D. & Scharber, C. (2010). Teaching old dogs new tricks: The luxury of digital abundance. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53 (7), 600603.

Opfer, V.D & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of

Educational Research , 81 (3), 376407.

Owston, R.D., Sinclair, M., & Wideman, H. (2008). Blended learning for professional development: An evaluation of a program for middle school mathematics and science teachers. Teachers College Record, 110 (5), 10331064.

Patton, M.Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluative methods. United States of America:

Sage Publications.

Plair, S. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and fluency.

Clearing House, 82 (2), 7074.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants . Retrieved from http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives%20Digital

%20Immigrants%20%20Part1.htm

Prensky, M. (2012). Before bringing in new tools, you must bring in new thinking. Retrieved from http://marcprensky.com/writing/PrenskyNewThinkingAmplifyJune2012.pdf

Puentedura, R.R. (2013, May 29). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation


[Web log post].Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html

Ransdell, S., Kent, B., GaillardKenney, S., & Long, J. (2011). Digital immigrants fare better than digital natives due to social reliance. British Journal Of Educational Technology,

42 (6), 931938.

Raths, J. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and teaching beliefs. Early Childhood Research & Practice,

3 (1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n1/raths.html

Reeves, T.D. & Pedulla, J.J. (2011). Predictors of teacher satisfaction with online professional development with evidence from the USA’s eLearning for Educator’s initiative.

Professional Development in Education, 121.

Russell, M., Carey, R., Kleiman, G., & Venable, J.D. (2009). Facetoface and online professional development for mathematics teachers: a comparative study. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13 (2), 71–87.

Romrell, D., Kidder, L.C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2).

Salajan, F.D., Schonwetter, D.J. & Cleghorn, B.M. (2010). Student and faculty intergenerational digital divide: Fact or fiction. Computers & Education, 55 , 13931403.

Sawchuck, S., 2010. Professional development for teachers at crossroads [online]. Available from: http://www.edweek.org/go/pdreport

Schechter, B., & Grant, A. (2010). Building with atoms. Discover, 31 (8), 32.

Schrum, L., & Levin, B. (2013). Lessons learned from exemplary schools. Techtrends: Linking

Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57 (1), 3842.


Sharwood, S. 2015. Don’t bother buying computers for schools. Available from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/15/dont_bother_buying_computers_for_schools_sa ys_oecd_report/

Slavich, G. & P. Zimbardo, P. (2012). Transformational teaching: Theoretical underpinnings, basic principles, and core methods. Educational Psychology Review, (24), 569608.

Smith, A. (2012). Cell Internet Use 2012. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/CellInternetUse2012.aspx

Srinuan, C. & Bohlin, E. (2011). Understanding the digital divide: A literature survey and ways forward. 22nd European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications

Society (ITS 2011) , Budapest, 18 21.

Swain, S. & Pearson, T. (2003). Educators and technology standards: Influencing the digital divide. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (3), 326335.

Thornburg, D. (2007). Primordial metaphors for learning in the 21st century [White paper].

Retrieved from http://www.tcpd.org

Tillema, H. (2000). Belief change towards selfdirected learning in student teachers immersion in practice or reflection on action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 , 575–591.

Wang, M., Shen, R., Novak, D., & Pan, X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students' learning behaviours and performance: Report from a large blended classroom. British

Journal Of Educational Technology , 40 (4), 673695.

Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 , 5–22.

Willoughby, M. (2005). The future is more than Moore's was. Computerworld, 39 (18), 32.


Wood, E., Mueller, J., Willoughby, T., Specht, J. & Deyoung, T. (2005). Teacher’s perceptions: Barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Education,

Communication & Information, 5 (2), 183206.

Wright, A.W. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79 (2), 702739.

Yang, H.H. & Yuen, S.C., (2010). Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in eLearning: Issues and trends. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. United States of America: Sage

Publications, Inc.


Appendix A Survey

■ Demographics (various answers)

APPENDIX

■ Gender

■ Race

■ School Corporation

■ Building Name

■ With which grades do you primarily work?

■ How many years have you been teaching?

■ Which subject(s) do you teach? (dropdown menu)

■ Standard 1: Student Learning and Creativity

■ (Choices are Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Undecided, Agree, Strongly Agree)

■ 1. My students receive information via questionbased discussions

(Socratic Seminar).

■ 2. My students have opportunities to collaborate with peers.

■ 3. My students have opportunities to be creative or innovative when

142

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS demonstrating their learning (projects or presentations).

■ Standard 2: Digital Age Experience and Assessment

143


■ 4. The majority of my students use devices for learning (desktop computers, tablets, laptops, Chromebooks, cell phones; Do NOT consider calculators a device).

■ 5. My students use Google Apps for Education for assignments in my classroom (Docs, Sheets, Forms, Presentation, etc.).

■ 6. My students use a learning management system for assignments or communication in my classroom (My Big Campus, Edmodo, Moodle,

Canvas, etc.).

■ 7. My students use software to differentiate learning in my classroom

(Study Island, iXL, A.M., etc.).

■ 8. I use data from formative and summative assessments to customize learning.

■ Standard 3: Model Digital Age Work and Learning


■ 9. I use technology (beyond my desktop computer) for instruction (doc

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS camera, smart board, iPad, etc).

144

■ 10. I use digital tools and resources to communicate with parents (Class website, My Big Campus, Moodle, Twitter, Edmodo, etc.).

■ 11. I use resources or research from the Internet (nontextbook) for instruction.

■ Standard 4: Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility


■ 12. I speak with my students about how to use digital information and technology safely.

■ 13. I teach my students what responsible social interaction online looks like.

■ 14. I provide students information about copyright laws, intellectual property, and the correct documentation of sources.

■ Standard 5: Professional Development and Leadership


■ 15. I discuss teaching methods and student learning with other professionals outside of my district in a virtual environment (Twitter,

Facebook, Pinterest, etc.)


■ 16. I read current research related to educational technology.

■ 17. I am aware of what effective technology integration looks like.

145

■ 18. I possess the ability to help others develop technology skills.

■ 19. I promote my ability to help others develop technology skills.

■ 20. I contribute to the effectiveness of technology integration in my school.


Appendix B Observation Tool

Standard 1: Student Learning and Creativity i.

Evidence of teacher/student group interaction (Socratic Seminar, higher level questioning, etc.) ii.

Evidence of students working in a group iii. Evidence of students working on a project or presentation (nontextbook/worksheet)

Standard 2: Digital Age Experience and Assessment i.

Evidence of the majority of students using a device ii.

Evidence of students using Google Apps for Education iii. Evidence of students using a learning management system iv. Evidence of customized or personalized learning (learning centers, games, research, iXL,

Study Island, etc.) v.

Evidence of systems are in place to use data to drive instructional decisions (data wall, data folders, formative assessment software Pivot, etc.)

Standard 3: Model Digital Age Work and Learning i.

Evidence of the teacher using available instructional technology beyond desktop computer (doc camera, smartboard, iPad, etc.) ii.

Evidence of use of social media for student or parent communication iii. Evidence of teacher using resources or research from the internet (nontextbook)

Standard 4: Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility i.



Appendix C Focus Group Questions

Hello, my name is Jason Roseberry, and I am a Ball State University doctorate student researching professional development specific to technology integration in schools. I want you to know that your responses today are anonymous and confidential. While your identity will not be recorded with your responses, I can not guarantee that other respondents in this room will not pass on your responses. Are there any questions before we get started? Let’s begin by sharing your first name and your gradelevel/subject.

■ ISTE Standard 1

■ Administrators

■ How do your teachers currently allow students to creatively demonstrate mastery of content? (prompt about projects and presentations if necessary)

■ Teachers

■ How do you allow students to creatively demonstrate mastery of content?

■ How do you incorporate Internet resources into your instruction and/or student learning experiences?

■ ISTE Standard 2

■ Administrators

■ How are your teachers currently using data to inform instruction?

■ How do your students currently use technology to learn? (prompt with

LMS, GAFE, Study Island, and specific devices if necessary)

■ Teachers

■ How do you currently use data to inform instruction?

■ How do your students currently use technology to learn? (prompt with

LMS, GAFE, Study Island, and specific devices if necessary)


■ ISTE Standard 3

■ Administrators

■ How do your teachers use technology to communicate with students, parents, and colleagues?

■ How has the increased integration of technology affected instruction?

Student learning?

■ Teachers

■ How do you use technology to communicate with your students, parents, and colleagues?

■ How has the increased integration of technology affected instruction?

Student learning?

■ ISTE Standard 4

■ Administrators

■ How is digital citizenship taught/promoted in your school/district?

■ Teachers

■ How do you talk about digital citizenship into your classroom?

■ ISTE Standard 5

■ Administrators

■ How do you decide which concepts to include in your professional development?

■ How is the success of your professional development currently measured?

■ Please share how the following concepts are considered when planning

ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS 149 professional development experiences:

■ student learning

■ teacher beliefs

■ teacher reflection

■ professional learning communities

■ Please share how professional development is jobembedded in your school.

■ Teachers

■ How is the success of your professional development currently measured?

■ How are professional learning experiences accommodated to meet your level of need?

■ What methods of delivery are currently used for professional development? (prompt with onsite, blended, selfdirected if necessary)

■ Please share what part the following concepts play in your professional development opportunities:

■ student learning

■ teacher beliefs

■ teacher reflection

■ professional learning communities

■ How do the professional development opportunities meet the needs for your grade level and subject area?

1 ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS INTO HIGHACCESS LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Related documents

Products

Support

1 ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS INTO HIGH­ACCESS LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

1 ASSIMILATING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS INTO HIGHACCESS LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS