Can Teacher Technology Integration Training Alone Lead to High Levels of Technology Integration?
A Qualitative Look at Teachers’ Technology Integration after State Mandated Technology Training
Kimball-1
Beatriz M. Kimball
Professor Suter
Educational Foundations 7303
September 13, 2010
Zhao Y. & Bryant F. L. (2005) Can Teacher Technology Integration Training Alone
Lead to High Levels of Technology Integration? A Qualitative Look at Teachers’
Technology Integration after State Mandated Technology Training. Electronic Journal
for the Integration of Technology in Education, Vol. 5, 53-62
1. Zhao and Bryant present qualitative research that examined the success of Georgia’s
technology staff development program InTech short for Integrating Technology. This
study appears to be inferential rather than descriptive as the data groups were very small
yet the results were meant to influence state policy. One subject group consisted of 17
social studies teachers (6th -12th grade) drawn from four middle and four high schools in
six rural and suburban school districts. These participants did not participate in follow up
training nor did they seek support from technology specialists after the InTech training.
The second group had 5 general education teachers (k-5) from one school located in a
large metropolitan area. These participants were supported by a technology integration
specialist who served as a mentor in technology use after InTech training.
As a qualitative study, data from one subject group (social studies teachers) was
mainly collected through interviews, classroom observations, and document analysis.
Documents collected included participants’ reflection journals and lesson plans during
their InTech training, their current lesson plans, instructional web pages, PowerPoint
presentation as well as handouts and assignments. Student technology-based projects
were also included in the collection of documents for analysis. The researcher observed
the second subject group (K-5 teachers) and conducted three open-ended interviews and
written surveys, one at the beginning, one at the middle and one at the end of the study
with all participants. Data analysis indicated that participants possessed different views
toward their InTech training experiences based on their level of experience with
technology and their years of experience in the classroom. All participants expressed
positive attitudes towards technology, learned new ideas and developed new insights for
teaching and learning with technology. Analysis also revealed that most social studies
teachers were willing to integrate technology into the curriculum and made efforts to
implement what they had learned. However the data indicated that training alone did not
ensure that teachers would infuse technology into instruction or change instructional
practices. Both datasets indicated a strong interest in integrating technology more
effectively with their student but were negatively affected by a lack of practice and
follow-up support. Data analysis of K-5 teachers revealed that they became far more
willing and comfortable to integrate technology into their classrooms as weekly
mentoring continued. The results of this study indicate that classes that accommodate
participants’ technology ability, subject background and follow up mentoring sessions
within the teachers’ own classrooms may be effective in helping them become more
competent technology users. The study concludes that the current teaching force needs to
be better supported through provisions of technology integration specialist to provide
mentoring and/or team teaching. A recommendation is made that state funds be
Can Teacher Technology Integration Training Alone Lead to High Levels of Technology Integration?
A Qualitative Look at Teachers’ Technology Integration after State Mandated Technology Training
Kimball-2
dedicated to provide schools with teachers who have technology techniques and
mentoring capabilities.
2. The basic research question asked by Zhao and Bryant in this study was stated in the
title: “Can Teacher Technology Integration Training Alone Lead to High Levels of
Technology Integration? Analysis of the data resulting from the study indicates that: No,
Technology Integration Training alone cannot lead to high levels of technology
integration. Four additional questions guided the research: “(a) how do these teachers
perceive the technology integration training they received? (b) what impact does
technology training have on their use of technology in the classroom? (c) what are the
barriers that still exist inhibiting these teachers from more frequent and effective use of
technology? and (d) what effect does peer coaching/mentoring after the training have on
these teachers’ use of technology in the classroom?”
I believe that after studying the researchers’ conclusions an additional research
question arises: “What factors will increase the probability that teachers are able to
integrate technology into their teaching strategies?” This research question could lead to
a number of studies designed to examine the different factors that teachers reported
hindered their ability to integrate technology successfully. These research questions
could include:
1. Will participants in Technology Training classes that accommodate
specific levels of technology ability integrate technology into their
instruction at a greater level than participants in classes of mixed
technology ability?
2. Will participants who begin Technology Training at an advanced
technology skill level integrate technology at a greater level than those
who begin Technology Training at a novice skill level?
3. Will participants in Technology Training classes that include teachers of
similar subjects integrate technology into their instruction at a greater level
than participants in classes of varied subjects?
4. Will teachers who participate in Technology Training in school-based
teams integrate technology into their instruction at a greater level than
teachers randomly assigned to instruction groups?
5. Will social studies teachers who receive follow up mentoring sessions
integrate technology into their instruction at a greater level than social
studies teachers who do not receive follow up mentoring sessions?
3. Zhao and Bryant appear to use no research language in the published report of their
study. There exists a quasi-independent variable in this study. The availability of a
technology integration specialist was manipulated by the researchers. However, nothing
in the article indicates random assignment of participants. In their introduction Zhao and
Bryant state the reasons for their chosen data groups. They cite research that has
repeatedly shown that social studies teachers are less likely to use technology than
teachers of other disciplines. (Anderson & Becker, 2001; CEO Forum on Education and
Technology, 1997; Cummings, 1998; Dawson, Bull, & Swain, 2000; Martorella, 1997).
They also maintain that it is necessary to understand how elementary teachers perceive
and use technology after training and how the use of mentoring might affect technology
Can Teacher Technology Integration Training Alone Lead to High Levels of Technology Integration?
A Qualitative Look at Teachers’ Technology Integration after State Mandated Technology Training
Kimball-3
integration. I feel that the researchers failed to consider attribute variables that existed in
their data groups. The 17 social studies teachers included six females and eleven males. The
participants were predominantly Caucasian, with 2 African-Americans. The 4 middle
schools and 4 high schools were in rural and suburban school districts. All 5 of the
participants in the second data set were Caucasian females teaching in a large metropolitan
area. Although again not mentioned with the specific language, the extraneous variable of
prior technology skill was a factor mentioned by participants in both data groups that should
be considered in future InTech training sessions. Its effect on the dependent variable, the
implementation of technology into classroom instruction, was not considered.
One glaring breakdown I find in the study was the failure to have a group of social
studies teachers supported by a technology integration specialist who served as a mentor
in technology use after InTech training for comparison as well as a group of K-5 teachers
working without the support of a technology integration specialist to serve as a mentor in
technology use after InTech training. This would have created two Fourfold Tables:
Social Studies
Teachers
K-5
Teachers
Support
Support
No Support
Yes
Technology
Integration
No
No Support
Yes
Technology
Integration
No
With their data reported in this mode Zhao and Bryant might have had more substantial
evidence to support the given reason for conducting their research: to “inform school
administrators and policy-makers in regards to providing more effective instructional and
technology support, gaining the most benefit from investments made on professional
development related to technology integration.”