MOBILE DEVICES AND THE TEACHER PERCEIVED BARRIERS IMPACTING

EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION IN THE K-5 CLASSROOM

by

Tina S. Nixon

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX

January 2013

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3570579

Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 3570579

© 2013 by TINA S. NIXON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Abstract

This qualitative, phenomenological study explored the teacher perceived barriers of using

mobile devices in the K-5 classroom. Research confirms teachers face various types of

variables and become reluctant to use technology within their curriculum driven lessons.

This study sought to understand what teachers perceive as barriers, and how the

perceived barriers interfere with the daily instruction through mobile devices in all

subject areas. The problem guiding the study was based on the fact that teachers are

given mobile devices, but do not fully integrate them into the classroom instruction. The

study used a purposive sample of 12 elementary teachers. The findings from the study

were derived from interviews using open-ended questions and an observation. Both were

used to gather data based on the lived experiences of the participants. The data was

analyzed and the following themes were discovered: Time constraints, management

issues, inadequate number of devices, professional development/training concerns, and

lack of knowledge. These findings may provide school leaders with specific areas to

address, possibly reduce, or eliminate the barriers that cause teachers to limit their use of

mobile devices.

v

Dedication

Philippians 4:13, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I am

blessed beyond measure and I give God all the praise and glory. I want to dedicate this

dissertation to the memory of my baby brother Jha’Kyric Ja’Waun Nixon. Although you

are no longer with us in your physical form, you continue to inspire us with the memories

of your love and dedication to helping others. In 17 years you touched thousands with

your love. I only hope that I can touch a third of the people you have touched in my

lifetime. I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to my children, Jaden and Ja’Vius

Nixon. You remained patient and understanding throughout this entire journey. This

dissertation is also dedicated to my parents, Elvin and Celestine Nixon, who never

allowed me to be a quitter. They instilled both determination and resilience within me

from a young age and these qualities have allowed me to overcome many obstacles. I

dedicated this dissertation to my brothers Ronterro and Kellon and my sister Arlicia, who

have provided me with ongoing love and laughter. To the rest of my friends and family

that have been there for me during this journey, I dedicate this dissertation to you as well.

Last but definitely not least, this dissertation is dedicated to the Nixon and Mays family,

the past, the present, and the future. Go get your blessing.

vi

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge my chair and committee for working with me to

complete a lifelong goal. Dr. Chen, you allowed me to move through this dissertation

with determination and supported me when times became tough. Dr. Florian and Dr.

White, thank you for providing the feedback I needed to produce a quality dissertation. I

would also like to acknowledge the individuals within my cohort who have spent

countless hours encouraging me and being a listening ear.

vii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments..................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables .......................................................................................................... xiv

List of Figures .......................................................................................................... xv

Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

Background of the Problem ....................................................................................... 3

Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 6

Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................. 8

Significance of the Problem ....................................................................................... 8

Significance of the Study .................................................................................... 9

Significance of the Study to Leadership .................................................................... 9

Nature of the Study .................................................................................................. 10

Overview of the research method. .................................................................... 11

Overview of the design appropriateness ........................................................... 13

Research Question ................................................................................................... 13

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 15

Social Cognitive Theory ................................................................................... 15

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). ................................................................. 16

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ........................................................... 16

Definition of Terms.................................................................................................. 17

Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 18

Scope and Limitations.............................................................................................. 19

Delimitations ............................................................................................................ 21

viii

Summary .................................................................................................................. 21

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ......................................................................... 23

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals .................................. 24

Literature Review..................................................................................................... 25

Later Technology Integration .................................................................................. 26

Education Policies Regarding Technology .............................................................. 27

Barriers towards Technology Integration ................................................................ 28

Types of Barriers...................................................................................................... 28

Time. ........................................................................................................................ 28

Professional development. ................................................................................ 29

Technology Integration ............................................................................................ 31

Leadership roles. ............................................................................................... 31

Teacher Attitudes toward Mobile Technology Integration ...................................... 31

Literature Gap .......................................................................................................... 33

Current Findings ...................................................................................................... 35

Teacher Perspective ................................................................................................. 35

Student Perspectives ................................................................................................ 37

Professional Development and Technology ............................................................ 38

Availability of Mobile Devices ................................................................................ 39

Mobile/e-Learning with Mobile Devices ................................................................. 40

Learning Theories and Teaching Models ................................................................ 40

Student Learning and Teacher Instruction Models .................................................. 42

Cognitivist learning. ......................................................................................... 43

ix

Constructivist learning. ..................................................................................... 43

Behaviorist learning. ......................................................................................... 43

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 44

Summary .................................................................................................................. 45

Chapter 3: Method ................................................................................................... 47

Research Method and Design Appropriateness ....................................................... 47

Research Questions .................................................................................................. 49

Population ................................................................................................................ 50

Sampling Frame ....................................................................................................... 51

Informed Consent..................................................................................................... 53

Confidentiality ......................................................................................................... 53

Geographic Location ................................................................................................ 54

Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 55

Interviews. ........................................................................................................ 55

Observations. .................................................................................................... 56

Instrumentation ........................................................................................................ 57

Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................ 58

Internal validity. ................................................................................................ 59

External validity. ............................................................................................... 59

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 59

Summary .................................................................................................................. 61

CHAPTER 4: Results .............................................................................................. 62

Pilot Study ................................................................................................................ 62

x

Sample...................................................................................................................... 63

Demographic Characteristics of Participants ........................................................... 63

Note. ............................................................................................................. 64

Note. ............................................................................................................. 65

Note. ............................................................................................................. 65

Note. ............................................................................................................. 66

Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 66

Data Generation and Analysis ................................................................................. 67

Procedures ................................................................................................................ 67

Research Questions and Rationale ........................................................................... 68

Observation Findings ............................................................................................... 69

Item #1. ........................................................................................................ 70

Item #2 ......................................................................................................... 71

Item#3 .......................................................................................................... 71

Item#4 .......................................................................................................... 72

Item #5 ......................................................................................................... 72

Item #6. ........................................................................................................ 72

Item #7 ......................................................................................................... 73

Item#8 .......................................................................................................... 73

Interview findings. ............................................................................................ 73

Question 1 .................................................................................................... 73

Question 2 .................................................................................................... 75

Question 3 .................................................................................................... 76

xi

Question 4 .................................................................................................... 78

Theme 1: Lack of knowledge. ..................................................................... 79

Theme 2: Inadequate number of devices. .................................................... 79

Theme 3: Management issues. ..................................................................... 80

Question 5 .................................................................................................... 81

Theme 1: Training........................................................................................ 81

Theme 2: More devices. ............................................................................... 81

Theme 3: Integrate technology into curriculum. .......................................... 82

Theme 4: Management. ............................................................................... 82

Theme 5: Work with veteran teachers. ........................................................ 82

Theme 6: Increase knowledge. .................................................................... 83

Theme 7: Time. ............................................................................................ 83

Question 6 .................................................................................................... 83

Question 7 .................................................................................................... 84

Summary .................................................................................................................. 85

CHAPTER 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................. 88

Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 89

Response to Research Questions ............................................................................. 89

Summary of Findings and Interpretation ................................................................. 92

Demographic Information ........................................................................................ 92

Teachers’ age. ................................................................................................... 93

Teachers’ gender. .............................................................................................. 94

Years of experience. ......................................................................................... 94

xii

Discoveries and Common Themes from Interviews ................................................ 95

Theme 1: Time Constraints. ............................................................................. 96

Theme 2: Inadequate Number of Devices. ....................................................... 96

Theme 3: Lack of Personal Knowledge. ........................................................... 97

Theme 4: Management Issues. ......................................................................... 97

Theme 5: Professional Development/Training. ................................................ 97

Significance of the Results to Leadership ................................................................ 98

Implications to Leadership ....................................................................................... 99

Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................................ 100

Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 101

Recommendations .................................................................................................. 103

Theme 1: More Technology Related Professional Development. .................. 104

Theme 2: Reduce Time Constraints. .............................................................. 104

Theme 3: Provide Management Tools. ........................................................... 104

Theme 4: Increase the Number of Devices. .................................................... 105

Theme 5: Professional Development Improvements. ..................................... 105

Recommendations to Future Research................................................................... 105

Summary ................................................................................................................ 107

References .............................................................................................................. 109

Appendix A: Letter of Collaboration ..................................................................... 125

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ................................................................... 127

Appendix C: Information Letter ............................................................................ 129

Appendix D: Interview Protocol ............................................................................ 131

xiii

Appendix E: Interview Scheduler .......................................................................... 133

Appendix F: Interview Questions .......................................................................... 135

Appendix G: Observation Checklist ...................................................................... 139

Appendix H: Confidentiality Statement................................................................. 141

Appendix I: Non-Disclosure Agreement ............................................................... 141

Appendix J: Permission to Use Premises............................................................... 144

xiv

List of Tables

Table 1 Participant’s Age Range ............................................................................. 69

Table 2 Gender Category ......................................................................................... 69

Table 3 Years as a Fulltime Teacher ....................................................................... 71

Table 4 Current Grade Level ................................................................................... 72

xv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Barriers Affecting the Use of Mobile Devices. ................................ ……80

Figure 2. Mobile Devices Used in the Classroom. .................................................. 83

Figure 3. Factors that Personally Affect the Use of Mobile Devices……………...85

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Technology is a rapidly evolving tool in the world of education; and, it is more

accessible for some than it was in the past. Schools are finding it necessary to make

technology an instrumental component of student learning. “For the last decade

technology policies emphasized teacher technology preparation as the single most

important step toward technology integration in classrooms” (Lei, 2009, pg. 87).

Although it is perceived as more accessible, researchers have found that instructional

practices of teachers and student learning have changed minimally (Hayes, 2007). Since

the economic decline of 2008 many school districts and education agencies, experiencing

the negative effects of financial cuts, have viewed investing in technology as a

questionable move. Therefore, just having access to technology may not be enough to

change student learning. Hernandez-Ramos (2005) adds that mere access to technology

is not propitious if students are not benefiting academically and teachers’ instructional

practices are not improved.

One way to ensure that school district technology investments net positive results

rather than interfering with instruction is to survey teachers’ beliefs and perceived

barriers concerning actual instructional improvements with the types of technical devices

being purchased for their classrooms. One challenge teachers face is the breadth and

constant expansion of technology encompassing wide ranges of hardware, software, and

media, such as: laptops, personal computers, keyboards, mice, software (e.g. education

programs, wikis, blogs, smart phones, smart tablets, and video gaming systems), and the

Internet (e.g. social networking such as Twitter and Facebook). Migliorino (2011) noted

that associates learning to use new technology experience all of the same complexities of

learning a new language.

2

For educators technology has become more of an instructional tool than

an administrative tool. The days of technology being a primary instrument for

administrative related duties are long gone. In the past the main function of the computer

was to input data such as attendance, or send emails to parents and staff members.

Today, administrators expect technology to be incorporated into instruction as a regular

part of the district curriculum. The problem with incorporation of technology is the rapid

pace of change where the best tools can change radically within a week. It no longer

takes years, or months for new ideas to evolve. For example, mobile devices provide a

variety of resources for teachers and administrators to integrate into classroom

environments. A teacher may use mobile devices to search the Internet for a resource to

use in class, such as, videos on YouTube, Soundzabound for music content, or download

portable document formats (PDF) on the latest version of Adobe for student access on

iBooks via their iPads. This process alone may be overwhelming for many teachers,

therefore administrators who understand the high desire of teachers to produce quality

results could take the lead in assisting them instructionally producing benefits for all

concerned.

Chapter 1 included the problem statement, purpose, and research questions. The

nature and significance of the study was addressed along with the theoretical framework

related to teacher perceived barriers toward instruction and effective integration of

handheld technology. A definition of terms was included to expand understanding about

some of the technical terminology used within this study. A list of assumptions,

limitations, delimitations, and a summarization were provided at the conclusion of this

chapter.

3

Background of the Problem

Mobile electronic devices came on the scene prior to 1973 when Hewlett Packard

(HP) introduced the calculator. Although many of the functions were basic they required

unique introduction and training for teachers and students to use the various handheld

tools. Since then technology has moved far beyond the calculator to more complex

handheld computers. In the early 1990s computers were rarely used in the classroom;

but, by 2005 computers with Internet access was at 94% in all US public school

classrooms (Cook, 2008). Traditional desktop computers of the early 1990s are no longer

recognized as the main computer hardware for schools because their place has been filled

by laptops, handheld electronic devices, and pentop computers equipped with wireless

broadband connections to the Internet (Cook, 2008).

According to Moallem, Kermani, and Chen (2005) technology formerly exclusive

to business professionals, such as wireless computers and handheld devices, are regularly

used in classrooms and schools across the United States. The availability of mobile

devices may open new doorways for teachers to add diverse learning experiences for

students. Moallem, Kermani, and Chen (2005) suggest the existence of a void in

systematic research investigating the effects of new technology tools on the attitudes of

the teachers and students using this equipment. The absence of information concerning

learning outcomes and the lack of substantial documentation is also evident in the data.

Teachers can access and receive technology in classrooms; yet, minimal research

is simultaneously provided instructing on effective use of these new products/tools. In

addition to teachers using products effectively, they must also be familiar with all the

capabilities of the devices through which the products are accessed. Cheng and Hew

(2009) noted that one mobile learning device could include multiple tools categorized as

4

multimedia tools, communication tools, capture tools, representational tools,

analytical tools, assessment tools, and task management tools. There are also categories

within categories that make it even more challenging for teachers to have the knowledge

and efficacy to support students with these devices in the classroom. According to

Tschannen et al. (as cited by Basile, Kimbrough, Koellner, and Swackhamer, 2009), a

teacher’s perception of their efficacy has been consistently recognized as an important

attribute of effective teaching and has a definitively positive correlation to teacher

instruction and student learning outcomes.

Twenty-first century learners, the influx of technology in the media, and an

increase of home use of technology are hitting educators at an alarmingly accelerating

rate. This rapid shift in technology is pushing educators to seek techniques for

integrating ways students are accustomed to living with delivery of learning components.

Some schools receive support from community stakeholders, such as Parent Teacher

Associations (PTA), Parent Teacher Organizations (PTO), and private businesses willing

to provide mobile devices to classrooms. In addition to resources provided by

stakeholders many schools allow students to bring their own learning devices to school.

This creates additional concerns and stress for teachers who may have minimal

knowledge about using the various devices brought into classrooms. Technical support

for individual school campuses may be comprised of superficial knowledge regarding

wide varieties of devices, whereas others may only be familiar with the ones they own.

Some of the barriers faced by teachers may be associated with selecting types of

professional development associated with technology. These obstacles may include

limited knowledge from lack of professional development, time, age, tenure, and

efficacy. The benefits of professional development include training/re-training on specific

5

teacher objectives to become more proficient in their jobs. Since the technology

is so new, research is limited; therefore, training for teachers to receive is also limited.

Plair’s (2008) research shows that teachers do not have high expectations for training

being received; rather, many experience it as a variety of introductory sessions lacking in

on-going support and resources to guide them when they reenter the classroom.

A study conducted by Plair (2008) found that, “teachers and administrators must

make a concerted effort to make training resources available to veteran teachers lagging

behind and hindered by the digital divide widening between themselves and their

increasingly tech-savvy students.” Teachers feeling intimidated by unfamiliar devices

brought into the classroom by their students may choose to eliminate technology from

their instructional plans until their comfort level with the devices rises. At the same time

students may be exhibiting considerable knowledge and understanding of technology in

their social lives, music listening, video games, interacting on social networks, and

searching the Internet. Although teachers may have general knowledge, they may not be

as savvy in other areas that may increase anxiety about being on the same technology

level as students entering their classrooms. Teachers have always considered themselves

to be the classroom instructor; so, they often overlook accepting the role of student to

learn new techniques and increase confidence in different areas. Teachers who perceive

their limited knowledge as a negative statement on their abilities usually exhibit low self-

efficacy. The negative self-images held by these teachers must be understood and

addressed in order to increase their self-efficacy. Teachers with high efficacy levels

usually achieve positive and effective results when using technology to meet pedagogical

practices versus teachers with low self-efficacy (Basile, Kimbrough, Koellner, &

Swackhamer, 2009).

6

Previous research has sought to provide a pedagogical approach to the

complex practice of technology integration. Research conducted by Hofer and Swan

(2008) reviewed the integration of technology through a theoretical framework known as

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Their study explored requisite

forms of teacher knowledge necessary for effective integration of technology in the

classroom. The original theoretical framework was created by Schuman (1986) and was

known as Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). The original framework focused on

the idea that teachers must not only obtain needed resources for specific subject areas;

but, they must also understand how to analyze and integrate the acquired resources.

Koehler and Mishra (2008) adapted the original version by Schuman to confirm the need

for teachers to receive training addressing technology pedagogy regarding technology

integration.

By being up-to-date on technology integration research, school districts can

inform their curriculum departments, who in turn can advise classroom teachers about

specific technology tools designed to meet their instructional needs. Teacher confidence

levels will increase with access to resources that are appropriate for their lessons without

feeling pressured to incorporate every available device.

Statement of the Problem

The general problem was that although mobile devices are being given to

teachers, they are not being fully integrated into classrooms and instructional plans

(Ertmer et al., 2008). Administrators wanting to decrease the digital divide in education

are concerned about teacher self-efficacy, teacher attitudes/beliefs, and lack of

technology training. Joseph’s (2010) findings suggest that further research should be

conducted to determine the impact on student learning processes resulting from the lack

7

of technology integration and alternative methods used by teachers to integrate

technology into curriculums. The specific problem was that teachers provided with

handheld technology are not fully integrating them as teaching and learning tools because

they perceive themselves as lacking in device knowledge and usage (Ertmer et al., 1999;

Brown-Joseph, 2010). Although it is reported that 100% of all teacher preparation

programs in the United States provide instruction on technology integration (Educational

Technology in Teacher Education Programs for Initial Licensure, 2006), the study only

researches institutions and does not consider experiences of alternatively certified

teachers who attend certification programs.

In order to determine why technology is not being used instructionally, teachers’

perceptions must be considered. Teachers and students benefit from teachers who are

confident in their teaching practices. Bandura (1997) described teachers’ perceptions of

self-efficacy as one of the best predictors of classroom performance. Teachers using

technology in classrooms will behave confidently, or lack confidence; and, the positive,

or negative aspects of their behaviors will have been greatly influenced by technology

familiarity and training.

Although handheld computers are only one of the many technology tools

introduced into classrooms, the detriment to the longevity of the innovation is the time

gap between real-time instructional use and training events to update teachers on proper

instructional use of rapidly changing technologies. School use and access to current

technology is on the rise and more states have established technology standards for

students, teachers, and administrators (Valdez, 2005). Because data is so limited, new

areas are being researched to pinpoint reasons why teachers feel unable to integrate

handheld computers effectively in classrooms. More than 10 years ago former President

8

Bill Clinton used the term “Digital Divide” in a national address when he

acknowledged that there are those that have, and those that have not (Digital Divides

Persist, 2011).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological study was to explore; K-5

elementary teacher’s perceived barriers of using mobile devices based on their lived

experiences. The lived experiences explained the teachers’ perception of their abilities to

integrate handheld technology into classroom instruction. By exploring the lived

experiences, the central questions of how teachers are using the mobile devices in their

classroom may be answered. By examining the characteristics of this phenomena school

leaders may acquire data, which may lead to better understanding and resolutions

addressing teachers’ concerns and needs. Teacher self-efficacy must be high in order for

them to want to use mobile devices in school.

This qualitative study was conducted to increase the understanding of why K-5

public education teachers are not successfully using handheld technology as a classroom

tool. The study included a qualitative, phenomenological research design to explore the

central phenomenon. Data inquiry was collected in the form of words, through

interviews and behaviors, through observations. Themes, common beliefs, and similar

experiences were discovered, after the data analysis of recorded interviews using

Moustakas (1994), modified method of a van Kaam transcendental phenomenological

research methodology.

Significance of the Problem

Resolving the problem of technology integration and teachers’ perceived barriers

is important and must be understood to achieve the best results. A study conducted by

9

Johnson, Willis, Levin, and Haywood (2011) found that by 2015, 80% of the

US population will be using mobile devices to access the Internet, and many will be

students. This study uniquely links two important topics previously researched

separately: handheld technology integration and teacher perceived barriers. Little to no

research exists that seeks to comparatively address both topics and the target population

for this study. This study addressed the needs of teachers and will serve as a decision-

making guide for educational professionals and administrators in the K-5 environment.

The information gathered may enhance assistance to students by teachers, administrators,

and central office staff when technology is being integrated into their classroom.

Significance of the Study

Resolving the problem of technology integration and teachers’ perceived barriers

is important and must be understood to achieve the best results. A study conducted by

Johnson, Willis, Levin, and Haywood (2011) found that by 2015, 80% of the US

population will be using mobile devices to access the Internet, and many will be

students. This study uniquely links two important topics previously researched

separately: handheld technology integration and teacher perceived barriers. Little to no

research exists that seeks to comparatively address both topics and the target population

for this study. This study addressed the needs of teachers and served as a decision-

making guide for educational professionals and administrators in the K-5 environment.

The information gathered will enhance assistance to students by teachers, administrators,

and central office staff when technology is being integrated into their classroom.

Significance of the Study to Leadership

School leaders need to know about classroom use of mobile devices and the

methods being applied by teachers to produce quality educational results in their

10

classrooms. Administrators and other school personnel also need to know how

students are affected by the practices of teachers using mobile devices in their class.

When school leaders understand the methods that are and are not working, they will be

in a better position to create meaningful professional development opportunities which

will promote continued use of the most workable methods. Additionally, technology

leaders will be able to apply the same evidence to school board presentations supporting

continued purchases of mobile devices proven to have instructional benefits. The study

can determine the future of all mobile devices within the school district. This new

knowledge can open doors and provide opportunities for an increased understanding of

the future impact of technology in K-5 classrooms.

By conducting this study, educational stakeholders will have opportunity to gain

insight into teachers’ perspectives on what hinders them from using mobile devices

within classrooms. By breaking down a specific form of technology, leaders have the

opportunity to demonstrate a model for application of classroom standards, professional

development, and on-going teacher support through the use of one tool, the template for

which can be replicated and applied to many other technology needs.

Nature of the Study

The field of education is currently lacking the appropriate support and

professional development to assist teachers with the integration of technology.

Professional development programs typically offered to teachers involve three to four

hours of training, explanations of use of tools, and various classroom examples; however,

the interest and support stops once the training concludes. The trainers never accompany

teachers into classrooms to ensure correct application of information supplied in the

11

professional development programs. The field also lacks knowledge and

information about student responses to instructional methods being used by their

teachers.

The importance of determining the most successful methods for facilitating

classroom technology use stems from educators’ desire and responsibility to teach

lifelong skills which students can apply day-to-day and in their future. If teachers lack

technology-in-the-classroom knowledge, then students and learning outcomes are

negatively affected. Administrators, technology staff, and curriculum writers must work

together to understand the needs of teachers and students. Therefore, administrators must

be capable of recognizing teachers’ lacking technical skills in order to help them

improve. Administrators must also know how to provide resources, additional

technology support, and guidance to ensure the classroom teacher gains self-efficacy

when using the technology.

By researching technology-in-the-classroom perspectives of teachers, this study

will address the issues noted above. The study allows teachers to share their lived

experiences regarding the training they receive prior to, during, and after receiving a new

technology tool. Going a step further, this study also researched the lived experience of

teacher self-efficacy and technology use.

Overview of the research method. The purpose of the current study was to

explore the lived experiences of K-5 teachers. By conducting this phenomenological

study, data can be gathered directly from teachers through the use of interviews, which

are an instrumental component of qualitative research. Through further research it was

determined that the most applicable research method would be in-depth interviews which

12

can only be conducted through a qualitative approach. An observation

checklist was also used to observe teachers in their classroom.

Research methodology refers to the broad perspective from which researchers

view a problem, investigate the problem and draw inferences (Simon, 2011). After closer

consideration, it was determined that the subject should be treated as a phenomenon and

that the most viable method would be a qualitative approach using structured interviews.

This research is usually gathered through the use of interviews, which will be

instrumental in understanding these phenomena in the educational environment. And, it

will lead to creation of standards and reliable support to eliminate perceived barriers to

technology usage.

For this study, 12 teachers were interviewed. The teachers brought a distinctive

level of education, years of teaching experience and perceptive, and background to the

research study. Interviews were conducted for the purpose of gathering data on the

teachers’ perceived barriers regarding incorporation of mobile devices into school

instruction. This study was an attempt to determine the existence of themes, or patterns

between teacher perceived barriers and their use of mobile devices. If teachers are going

to embrace technology as a teaching tool and receive assistance, deeper understanding of

their needs may ensure development of targeted programs and aids designed to eliminate

perceived barriers.

Because handheld technology is often used to discuss mobile devices, a study

conducted by Wang and Wang (2008) was evaluated for this research. The study titled,

“Developing and Validating an Instrument for Measuring Mobile Computing Self-

Efficacy” addresses concerns with previous technology research, which was limited to

desktop computers and wire-based technology contexts.

13

Overview of the design appropriateness. When determining the

appropriateness of the design for this research study, several quantitative research

methods were initially considered. Phenomenological research allows researchers to

inquire about the lived experiences of individuals. For the current study, the research

sought to understand what the teachers experienced in their classroom environment

(Moustakas, 1994).

This research design allows data collection to take place in the form of structured

interviews that will allow teachers to actively dialogue about their perceived barriers and

share their insights into the problem through lived experiences. This type of data

collection will provide detailed information and help identify similarities and differences

between teachers when integrating technology into their classrooms through

triangulation.

Research Question

The study used a central research question: How do Texas K-5 teachers describe

their experiences with handheld technology integration in classroom instruction? The

overall experiences of teachers were described in the following ways: integration of

technology to existing curriculums, questioning personal abilities and interference with

effectiveness. Having described the teachers’ experience, more clarity may be reached

on the phenomena of barriers to technology integration and teachers’ perceptions of

interference and limitations in instructional effectiveness. The best approach to identify

these perceived barriers will be interviewing and observing teachers which may lead to

discovery of commonalities in teachers’ failure to integrate mobile devices.

The following research questions were derived from the central research question,

and then used for this study:

14

R1: What (perceived) barriers caused teachers to avoid the use of mobile

devices as a part of their classroom instruction?

R2: How do these barriers interfere with the integration of mobile devices into

teachers’ instruction?

By discovering the barriers causing teachers to avoid mobile device use in

instruction, it was hoped that school leaders may consider applying the data toward

creation of policies designed to increase support for teacher technology integration

efforts. Research question number one seeks to uncover the perceived barriers teachers

face when using mobile devices in classrooms. Barriers such as time, self-efficacy,

attitudes and beliefs, and professional development represent some of the variables

teachers describe as barriers. Research question number two sought to understand how

the barriers affected teachers when attempting to adjust classroom instructional methods.

Using a phenomenological qualitative study allowed teachers to discuss in detail the

perceived barriers causing them to avoid instructional use of mobile devices usage, such

as iPods, iPads, and Smartphones.

Phenomenological studies allow researchers to explore, describe, and analyze

experiences lived by individuals in their natural environment (Marshall & Rossman,

2011). Professional development coordinators, technology coordinators, and

administrators when presented with a comprehensive explanation of teachers’

experiences and barriers, may be quicker to develop professional training designed to

eliminate barriers, increase integration of mobile devices, raise teacher self-efficacy, and

improve attitudes.

15

Theoretical Framework

Based on studies conducted by the United States Department of Education (2008),

only a small percentage of teachers (less than 5%) reported using technology on a weekly

basis to support instructional practices at an advanced level. Technology standards are

being implemented across the state and teachers are appraised for using mobile devices.

However, the benefits of advanced technology are lost to students whose teachers have

not integrated technology because of their perceived barriers.

Social Cognitive Theory. The social cognitive theory provided the main

theoretical framework for this study. Dealing with environmental and behavioral aspects

(Glantz, 2002), social cognitive theory addresses a number of areas including the specific

foci for this study: the environment, the situation, behavior capability, expectations,

expectancies, observational learning, and self-efficacy. With these factors in mind there

was also an interest in the theory of planned behavior.

The theoretical framework for this study is defined as: teacher self-efficacy,

professional development, integration of mobile technology in K-12 classrooms, and

student/teacher perceptions. This literature review includes several research studies that

attempt to understand how students and teachers perceive the use of technology in their

classrooms (Wing & Khe Foon, 2009; Becker, 1994; Wepner, Bowes, & Serotkin, 2008).

These studies applied various theories and models for gathering data and drawing

conclusions about student and teacher perceptions. Results varied; but, the research drew

considerable attention, questions, and inspired further research on the topic.

The study also addressed past and current theories on how teachers learn. By

understanding how teachers respond to the professional training they are given, then a

concept of the best practices for developing training that meets the needs of teachers can

16

take place. Teacher self-efficacy is also significantly influenced by the

professional development and support received during pre-service/in-service classes. The

availability of on-going classroom support delivered subsequent to completion of training

also affects teacher self-efficacy.

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). TPB suggests a connection between

attitudes and behavior. It was used in research conducted by Yaghoubi (2010) to

understand factors affecting the integration of technology as it relates to the theory of

planned behavior which associates individual attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived

behavioral control. The findings from this research study revealed that a person’s

perceived ease of use did not directly affect their intention to use technology; however,

their attitude and perception of usefulness was impacted and led to increased acceptance

of technology (Yaghoubi, 2010). Behaviors may include the willingness of teachers to

attend technology trainings.

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). TAM has been used in several research

studies to understand reasons for teachers accepting or rejecting technology. The TAM

model was originally created by Davis (1986) using the Theory of Reasoned Action

(TRA) which was based on the concept that behavior is the function of both attitudes and

belief (Masrom, 2007). The acceptance of technology is a result of multiple factors

(Nussbaum, 2009); therefore, promoting successful technology integration to teachers by

using the acceptance determinants should accelerate classroom use of mobile devices.

By accepting mobile devices teachers will better assist their students by seeking helpful

product information. Once acceptance of the technology has taken place teachers might

also encourage other grade level teachers and administrators to support using mobile

devices. Teachers will also find other ways to integrate mobile devices and new teaching

17

practices by seeking support at the campus and district level. They may also

begin to explore other opportunities to bring more devices into the classroom which may

be realized in the form of grants for resources, membership in professional learning

networks (PLN), or advocating the effectiveness of mobile devices in the classroom at

state or national levels.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined to provide an understanding of their use in the

context of this study.

Digital Divide: The distribution of populations in relation to their access to or

distance from access to digital technology.

Emerging technology: Technology that is new or cutting-edge, but, has not

reached its potential in society; therefore, society has not yet label, or categorized it

(Cozzens, 2010).

Instructional technology: Encompasses the idea of using technology within the

regular classroom instruction. Instruction with technology is seen as interactive,

engaging, and different. When teachers, administrators, and curriculum designers create

lessons appropriately using technology positive outcomes occur, including, social

interactions, teaching method/style changes, increased student/teacher motivation, and

enhanced student learning (Earle, 2002).

iPod: Portable media device that plays music and media files, introduced by

Apple in 2001.

iPod Touch: The iPod Touch, also referred to as the iTouch, is a portable media

device, personal digital assistant, handheld game console, and Wi-Fi mobile platform

designed and marketed by Apple.

18

Mobile learning devices: Smart tablets, such as, iPad/iPod Touch, and

smart phones are considered mobile learning devices. Useable as learning devices in

several environments, they are not limited to just classrooms (Quinn, 2012).

Technology integration: The ability to enmesh technology with existing

instructional practices by enriching learning experiences through extension of current

practices, reinforcing skills, conducting assessments to understand needs of learners and

measuring student achievement (Stratford Board of Education, 2011).

When teachers integrate technology into their classrooms, they are not using a

computer program to provide isolated instruction. Rather, technology integration

demands collaboration and deliberate planning about specific technology tools, such as

the Internet, iPad, Mobi Slate, Skype, etc. which will enhance lessons being taught in

classrooms. Administrators, technology specialists, and curriculum designers will be

able to model the district’s vision for technology integration; but, the responsibility for

ensuring the blending of technology with content-area lies with individual classroom

teachers (Stratford State Board of Education, 2011).

Assumptions

There are a number of assumptions applicable to the qualitative study. The first

assumption was teachers would answer honestly concerning their ability to integrate

mobile devices with school curriculums. This assumption was based on the belief that

teachers self-efficacy may limit their willingness to insert technology in their

instructional delivery.

The second assumption was teachers would respond honestly and not try to sway

the data to impress school administrators. An information letter was provided so teachers

would understand the purpose of the research study and their rights to confidentiality.

19

This step was necessary, so the teachers would answer truthfully. The

researcher took additional steps to ensure trustworthiness. This included explaining the

interviews were confidential would be stored for three years after the research study, and

then shredded. The third assumption is that interview questions will be appropriate and

probing by soliciting the types of responses needed to describe the data. The fourth

assumption is that teachers participating in the study were randomly selected and not

chosen based on criteria influenced by the administration.

The fifth assumption is that teachers will be comfortable giving truthful responses

knowing that the administration will not interfere with the study. Allowing teachers to

speak honestly about their feelings without the fear of being reprimanded will allow the

collected data to remain truthful and not be misleading. Each of the above steps was

taken to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.

Scope and Limitations

The scope of this study will include teachers of grades kindergarten through fifth

grade in a North Texas school district. The scope of the study did not include the

following: students, administrators, technology coordinators, professional development

coordinators, or curriculum and instruction coordinators. An approximation of the

initiation of data collection was April 2012.

The study focused on a single school district to allow for more in-depth analysis

of teacher experiences. The scope of the study may provide useful data and to insight

into technology integration and instruction. The scope was limited to the direct impact

teacher perceived barriers may have on integration of mobile devices in classroom

instruction. Perceived barriers included: various ages of teachers and the technology,

time, professional development, and individual attitudes.

20

The study is not limited by selecting a single school district because the

school district offers the same technology as other educational institutions. The selected

school receives district wide internet services and on their campus networked and

wireless personal computers (PC’s) are provided. The teachers on the campus have

access to projector’s, wireless tablets, iPads, and iPods.

Limitations for this study included factors such as the willingness of teachers to

analyze their current practices of using technology instructionally. The teachers may

have concerns that admitting their deficiencies may result in increased trainings, or lower

ratings by administrators on their professional development and appraisal (PDAS).

Another limitation of the study was the sample size. Many teachers may choose

not to participate which will decrease the quantity of K-5 teachers being studied.

Inclusion of only general education teachers within one school may limit the quantity of

differences in opinion because the population of teachers is accustomed to technology

responsibilities practiced on their campus. The qualitative research may be restricted

because survey participants may answer questions based on what they believe they are

“expected” to say rather than their personal, truthful answers. Teachers may not want to

open up when questioning and probing techniques are used.

The final limitation may involve the teachers’ personal feelings about their use of

mobile devices. Some teachers may not be as proficient with technology as others and,

therefore, will elect not to participate in the study. Teachers’ perceptions about their

levels of proficiency could shift the samples toward these three population segments:

only the most adept teachers, only the average teachers, or only the least experienced

teachers.

21

Delimitations

Delimitations are the boundaries of the study (Best & Kahn, 2006). This study

included participating teachers in general education who are integrating mobile devices

within instruction and who are considered highly qualified and certified for grades K-5 in

the state of Texas. This study sought to uncover themes and patterns of teacher perceived

barriers specific to mobile devices. Although there were several school districts within

the North Texas area, only one school district was chosen and this school district met the

technology standards for this research study.

Summary

This study was conducted to identify reasons why teachers are not using mobile

devices, such as the iPad, as instructional tools in their classrooms. School leaders have

been charged with the responsibility of ensuring that students receive instruction that

involves some components of technology. Studies have shown that some teachers’ self-

efficacy is low due to the lack of on-going technical support in schools and limited

professional development (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Hannay, 2001). Educational

leaders need to understand workable methods for supporting teachers and students

through instructional technology implementations.

22

Theoretical frameworks such as the social cognitive theory, TPB,

TPCK, and the TAM have been used in research involving mobile devices. Conclusions

from other research found that an individual must possess some or all of the factors

associated with these theories in order to invest the time to incorporate technology in

student instructional plans. Chapter 2 will provide a literature review of past and present

research, and examples supporting the research data. Information about the evolution of

education and technology will be presented in the research data, as well as, technology

integration, teacher attitudes, and teacher perceived barriers associated with technology

integration and mobile devices.

23

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

Technology in education is becoming popular; and, its implementation is not

being held back by the skills, or knowledge of the educators within the school system. In

order to successfully support teachers administrators, professional development

coordinators, and technology coordinators must have some or all of the following: (1)

data highlighting areas in which teacher need support, (2) workable methods for

continuously supporting them, and (3) examples of student learning experiences resulting

from support and training received by teachers. The purpose of this phenomenological

qualitative study was to describe barriers to technology integration as perceived by

teachers. Barriers such as teacher self-efficacy are significant; and, when administrators

understand these hindrances, significant improvements can take place which will improve

support systems and opportunities for proper integration of technology. Technology can

increase students’ academic success if properly integrated into classroom instruction.

This qualitative phenomenological study will collect data to reveal barriers faced by

teachers in the K-5 environment when attempting to use mobile learning devices as

instructional tools.

Past research studies have used the terms handheld devices and mobile learning

devices interchangeably to mean a small machine used to compute, retrieve, and store

information (Cheung & Hew, 2009). Examples of these devices are smart phones, iPods,

and iPads and are often classified as being smaller than laptops, and proportioned to fit

into the palm of the hand. Elementary, secondary, higher education professionals and

students have experienced an emergence of these tools in recent years (Cheung & Hew,

2009).

24

Chapter 2 includes, (a) reviews of the literature that supports integrating

technology in the classroom, (b) a breakdown of literature based on the field of

education, educational leadership, and professional development, (c) examples of

research addressing components of the topic, and (d) conclusions drawn from the

compilation of the literature review. “The goal of the literature review is not to seek

answers to the proposed problem, but to find ways to create insightful questions that will

direct the research on the topic” (Yin, 2009, p. 10). This literature review focuses on the

evolution of technology as an aspect of education and the ways that technology is being,

as well as, why it is not being used in classrooms. Additional focus areas include barriers

(to technology integration) such as teacher self-efficacy, teacher attitudes, and

professional development.

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals

In reviewing the literature, the above focus areas were used to maintain relevancy

between information gathered and the research topic. Although several databases were

used, the following keywords and terms served as guides throughout the literature review.

The list of terms included: (1) general technology in K-5 education; (2) technology in K-

12 education; (3) handheld technology in the k-12 education environment; (4) handheld

technology in the K-5 environment; (6) professional development and teacher in-service

(technology); (7) student perception on technology integration; (8) teacher perception of

technology integration; (9) technology instruction in education; (10) technology

requirements in K-5 education; (11) wireless learning; (12) mobile learning devices; (13)

mobile learning; and (14) handheld devices.

A variety of sources were used to locate supporting documents for this literature

review. By using search engines, peer reviewed journal articles, and books, a number of

25

resources were found. With a focus on current peer reviewed journal articles,

the research topic remained relevant and current to trends, issues, and practices taking

place in education today. Searches conducted through the University of Phoenix student

library accessed databases such as ERIC, EBSCOhost, and ProQuest. Search engines

such as Google, and Google Scholar also produced vast amounts of information.

Database searches through the University of Phoenix Library resulted in over 250

peer reviewed journal articles using the various aforementioned key words and phrases.

The focus of the information collected was narrowed to highlight current research, topics

closest to the research area, and K-5 education and technology practices. Student

perspectives regarding teacher instructional practices yielded very few, if any results, in

any database. Teacher barriers, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions towards technology

integration yielded larger quantities of information, especially regarding general

technology. When using the same search parameters for mobile devices fewer results

were found.

Education itself has undergone many changes since its introduction to society. A

number of elements impacted changes within education; but, one of the fastest, most

rapidly differentiating factors is integration of mobile technology in classrooms. Dettelis

(2010) describes the current state of education as being rooted in industrial arts with

components that prepare a foundation for students to be successful in various careers,

which include the main areas of education such as science, math, critical thinking, and

the arts.

Literature Review

Historically educators worked to provide the basics of learning, and then

incorporated a few components of skills that required not only the use of the brain, but

26

also a few components of hand skills. When technology was introduced it was

viewed as a tool to create programs and usually emphasized basic formatting (Dettelis,

2010). In the early 90’s technology was no longer thought of as a stand-a-lone, rather, it

had become interchangeable with everything relating to a computer (Dettelis, 2010).

In 1965, an Act was passed to fund technology in schools. The Elementary and

Secondary Education Act, or ESEA, brought money for technology to schools; however,

most of the funds were earmarked for administrative tasks including records and database

management (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Later in 1981, IBM was the largest

mainframe manufacturing company to begin developing and selling PCs (IBM, 2012).

Computers were no longer exclusive to the business world, or front offices of schools,

teachers and administrators began to wonder what their role would be for incorporating

this “technology” into their classrooms (Brown, 2004).

Industrial arts was a major player in helping bring computers into school

classrooms (Dettelis, 2010). Public school officials gradually realized the usefulness of

computer technology and began to install desktop computers into classrooms (Cuban,

1986). This practice changed previous curriculum development methods, because it

initiated a requirement for teachers, school leaders, and curriculum designers to add a

technical aspect to student learning. Pannabecker (1995) noted that there was

considerable debate about the history of technology in education, because many

technology educators were being trained in educational methods influenced by social

science methods.

Later Technology Integration

Quality Education Data (2001) shows the number of students per computer has

dropped by almost half, from 10.1 in 1995 to only 5.4 between 1999-2000. Kleiner and

27

Farris (2002) found that while the ratios of students to computers were

dropping, the nation saw an increase in the availability of the Internet to schools within

the public education sector. The rise in numbers almost tripled, from 35% in 1994 to

99% in 2002 (Kleiner & Farris, 2002). Kleiner and Farris (2002) confirm that public

classrooms connecting to the Internet increased from a low 3% in 1994 to an alarming

and impressive 87% in 2001. Pannabecker’s (2005) research stated that educators must

teach students to interpret technology in the world in which they live. Society plays a

large role in influencing the types of technology devices that will be added to classrooms;

yet, teachers feel inadequately equipped to integrate it into their instruction (Franklin,

2007). Today teachers have access to numerous technology tools that were not available

to them in their initial years of teaching (Watson, 2006; Valdez, 2005; U.S. Congress

Office of Technology Assessment, 1995).

Education Policies Regarding Technology

According to the U.S. Department of Education (2002), the No Child Left Behind

(NCLB) includes policies that direct educators to include technology in both the

elementary and secondary classrooms. The NCLB states that technology integration

should be so instrumental in the child’s learning that it should include accessibility and

parental involvement (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Recently changes have

been made to improve the technology standards of the NCLB because over 80% of the

schools across the nation are not meeting the standards and being put on improvement

plans (Metiri Group, 2009). Some of the efforts made by the state education agency

include a process called capacity building which addresses shifting classroom practices

and the requisite professional development to enhance school use of technology for

effectiveness in both teaching and learning (Metiri Group, 2009).

28

Barriers towards Technology Integration

In previous studies teachers have listed barriers such as time, access to resource,

self-efficacy, on-going professional development and support, just to name a few

(Hartsell et al., 2010). Other studies have found age, demographics and years of teaching

to be barriers teachers list as the reason they are not capable of using mobile devices as

instructional tools (Holden & Rada, 2010; Ham, 2010; Izbal & Mahmood, 2010).

Research studies have collected data describing teacher perceived barriers related to

integration of technology into classrooms. Beyerback et al. (2001) found through

research that these barriers can be limited to one major barrier, or several barriers that

need to be addressed in order for positive results to happen.

Types of Barriers

Research studies have found several reasons for teachers’ discomfort with using

technology as a part of classroom instruction. Dawson (2006) found that some of the

reasons identified included time, access to resources, on-going support and professional

development. Many of those research studies did not specify mobile devices; so,

generalizations only apply regarding the applicability of this data to mobile devices

(Dawson, 2006; Brockmeier, Pate, & Leech, 2010).

Time. The issue of time can be viewed in various ways. Plair (2008) states a

lack of time may be seen as not having the time to use the technology during the

classroom instruction. The overall learning process can be impacted when time is

insufficient for applying the technology to student learning (Plair, 2008). Using mobile

devices continuously allows teachers and students to constantly practice and to ask

questions about rising situations during their use of the technology (Kinzie & Milbrath,

2000). Swackhamer, Koellner, Basile, and Kimbrough (2009) found that when teachers

29

gain understanding on managing lessons with time allocated for technology,

their comfort level with the tools will expand to the point of becoming an advantage in

their classrooms, as well as, in their daily lives.

Teachers may not be receiving interactive work sessions designed to teach the

usefulness of devices which also engages them to use devices in instructional settings

giving them hands-on-experience and instant application of learning (Judge & O’Bannon,

2008). Hartsell, Herron, Hourbin, and Rathod (2010) suggests when professional

development training is limited to training-the-tool, teacher learning is exclusive to the

device; however, when the training emphasizes practice using the tool in a safe

environment teacher confidence builds and potential use of devices in their classrooms

increases significantly, especially, when on-going support is guaranteed. This leads to

the next two topics which include professional development and on-going technology

support.

Professional development. Bransford and Schwartz (1999) describe how

teachers are professionals and have the responsibility to continuously look for ways to

become experts in their field. Research on computer use indicates that teachers use

computers and software related programs primarily for administrative tasks (Franklin,

2008). Since research shows that teachers play not only a major role, but a primary role

in student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Mosenthall, Lipson, Torncello, Russ, &

Mekkelsen, 2004), the professional training they receive is more significant than ever.

Franklin (2008) also adds that when teachers’ technology use is exclusive to

administrative tasks, students’ technical and academic skills are not enhanced and the

technology tools are rendered ineffective. In some school systems professional

development received by teachers primarily focuses on core subject areas with limited

30

emphasis on technical tools which could expand their instructional methods

(Paris, 2008; Smolin & Lawless, 2011). The quality, experiences, and depth of

professional development may vary depending on a given school district’s resources and

environment (Rogers & Wallace, 2011).

On-going technology support. Although teachers may receive professional

development training, if individual devices do not work in their classrooms, a down-turn

in their self-efficacy or attitude may cause them to decide to not use the devices (Holden

& Rada, 2011). Additionally, Brinkerhoff (2006) found that teachers who experience

malfunctioning equipment, and lack technology confidence, may feel embarrassed in

front of their students which could lead to increased apprehension about teaching with

technology. Shapley, Shehan, Maloney, and Caranikas-Walker (2010) suggest when a

teacher knows a tech professional is immediately available to both them and their

students, their confidence will increase and this may encourage further attempts to use the

technology in certain portions of lessons. Schrum and Glassett (2006) found the lack of

support still interferes with the skills teachers need to support student learning through

the use of mobile devices.

Knowledgeable technology support. Technology is such a broad area that it is

not realistic to expect educational technology support staffs to command detailed

knowledge on all of the technology with which they will work (Ramirez Jr., 2011).

Devices such as iPads and iPods have been introduced into educational environments

with minimal data supporting either their usefulness or effectiveness with regard to

increasing academic experiences (Wallings, 2012). Ramirez Jr. (2011) found through

research that campus technicians must have current, on-going, relevant training targeted

31

to the varieties of technologies being used in classrooms; and, with this in place

teachers’ attitudes will naturally be more positive toward integrating technology.

Technology Integration

Leadership roles. Kara-Soteriou (2009) found that leadership plays a role in the

integration of technology. Chien-hsing (2010) research indicates that when school

administrators buy into technology integration, their staff is likely to buy into it as well.

School administrators have the ability to fund technology, suggest teacher training

programs, and to rate teacher performance based on technology use (Ramirez Jr., 2011).

Ramirez Jr. (2011) found through research that administrators can create policies and set

goals for campus use of technologies such as mobile devices. Research shows that some

administrators have integrated the bring-your-own-device (BYOD) concept on their

campuses to minimize the digital divide between student technology use at home and in

school (Walling, 2012).

Research indicates that school administrators and leaders support students being

digital citizens (Walling, 2012). In a study conducted by Chen, Kermani, and Moallem

(2005) it was found that classroom dynamics changed when teachers use mobile devices

to deliver instruction. The class dynamics shifted from being lecture-driven to a more

interactive and student involved environment (Chen, Kermani, & Moallem, 2005, p.

100).

Teacher Attitudes toward Mobile Technology Integration

According to Lei (2009), digital citizenship and the digital divide are real

concerns in education. In addition to preparing students for careers that do not exist,

teachers are expected to practice innovative, outside the box thinking envisioning future

technology practices with which students will need to be accustomed to for life and

32

career success (Schrum & Glasset, 2006). Both teachers and students have

their own thoughts and feelings about what technology integration should look like in the

classroom. Students want open access to wifi, personal accounts, and their own devices

(Suki & Suki, 2011). Holden (2011) found that when the attitudes displayed by teachers

are positive their confidence is high towards technology use and success. When teachers

see real applicability and meaning for technology they are given to work with, they may

become more willing to seek additional opportunities to learn more about technology

(Swackhomer, Koellner, Basil, & Kimbrough, 2009).

A number of theories, such as constructivism, address the need to integrate

technology, such as mobile devices, to build personal, individual knowledge and to

organize information (Milbrath & Kinzie, 2000). Many educators want to know how

they can implement technology effectively into their classrooms because the students are

asking for it (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dyer, 1997). Douglas, Lewis, and Mavrou (2007)

state that although computers are often viewed as vehicles for individualizing instruction,

in practice, use of computers with groups of students is widely accepted as well.

Anvery (2009) states that unrealistic technology implementation expectations

inhibit teachers' pragmatic attempts to integrate technology into classroom contexts

which can lead to teachers being blamed for technology failing to fulfill its promise.

Through their research Fordham and Vannatta (2004) found conclusive evidence that

personal beliefs and dispositions of teachers correlated to the results of their technology

integration achievements. Parry (2011) found that educators who were not receptive

toward mobile devices wanted to ban them from their classrooms. Students were

instructed not to use devices such as Smartphones or tablet computers while in their

classrooms. Skiba (2011) found that many instructors feared that students would be

33

distracted and tempted to access social networking sites or the Internet during

classroom instruction time.

Another survey created to address end user attitudes towards technology was

developed by Davis (1993); however, the information collected was more focused on

explaining attitudes and predictive attitudes of business environment technology usage.

The Davis study assumed that a person’s attitude toward technology was made up of two

components: (1) usefulness of the technology component, and (2) ease of use of the

stated technology.

Teacher concerns with issues such as the digital divide causes additional stress

and negative attitudes towards integrating mobile devices. The 2011 Horizon K-12

report states:

“The digital divide, once seen as a factor of wealth, is now seen as a factor of education: those who have the opportunity to learn technology skills are in a better position to obtain and make use of technology than those who do not.”

Parry (2011) adds: “We are called on as teachers to teach them how to use these technologies

effectively, to ensure that they end up on the right side of the digital divide: the side that knows how to use social media to band together.”

The results of this study may assist administrators and professional development

coordinators in designing meaningful teacher trainings that will expand their knowledge

of technology usage in their classrooms. As a result of teachers feeling more comfortable

with technology, previously held negative attitudes may also improve.

Literature Gap

When reviewing historical data and student perspectives concerning reasons

teachers do not use technology in their classrooms, data on teacher self-efficacy as it

relates to selection of professional development training was scarce. Issues were

34

identified by searching for and compiling missing and available data regarding

inadequacies in teacher and administrator training and support of instructional technology

(Dawson & Rakes, 2003).

Research studies on how barriers affect teachers in regards to technology have

been conducted over the years. Research studies from Ertmer (1999) described the

barriers in his research as being first and second order in nature, and affecting teacher

self-efficacy. More current research found that barriers such as time and professional

development still remain as concerns for teachers. The barriers are noted throughout the

years, but solutions to eliminating these barriers are still unknown. As a result, teachers

are still reporting barriers as impacting their ability to integrate technology into the

classroom.

Kopcha (2010) researched a technique that used mentoring to help teachers

integrate technology instructionally. It was found that school administrators often lacked

the appropriate knowledge to deliver training to teachers; and, some of the literature

suggested that teachers and administrators received the same training repositioning

administrators to a supportive, rather than exclusively evaluative role. Kopcha’s mentor

model incorporates methods that eliminate some barriers faced by teachers when

attempting to integrate technology (2010). Many of the barriers likely to be eliminated

by using a mentor include: time, self-efficacy issues, availability, professional training

(in-service and pre-service) and cultural differences (Kopcha, 2010).

Another identified gap includes student perspectives on the effectiveness of

teachers’ technology integration within the classroom. Literature shows that teacher and

administrator perspectives can be similar, but may also vary depending on the type of

environment, teacher motivation, and training. There is little to no literature that provides

35

research-collected data on student perspectives. The result of conducting this

review of current data regarding instructional technology findings supports this research

topic. The need to conduct this study and collect data that will provide information,

guidance, and influence future research studies in technology integration.

Current Findings

Ertmer and Ottenbreit (2010) emphasize the need for teachers to be agents of

change within their classrooms. Many factors are associated with a teachers’ ability to

provide acceptable, meaningful technology practices within their classrooms. These

factors include: knowledge of technology, self-efficacy, pedagogical beliefs, school

culture and subject (Ertmer & Ottenbreit, 2010). In addition to the above factors teachers

must be personally motivated and open to learning best practices for using technology in

classrooms. Once teachers are willing to adapt to 21st century methods of learning they

will also incorporate technology tools into their classrooms (Keengwe, Onchwari, &

Wachira, 2008).

Teacher Perspective

Brown and Warschaur (2006) found that one of the barriers affecting integration

of technology in classrooms was teachers’ limited knowledge of computer use.

Computer use is such a broad term encompassing many areas. Pannabecker (1995)

described teachers’ lack knowledge in terms of defining technology as internalist,

externalist, and contextualist. The internalist’s perspective focuses on the object or

artifact and its workability in day-to-day life within current society. The externalist

views the object receiving limited attention and only accessed to illustrate a topic or

concept. Lastly, the contextualist’s object definition involves trending historical topics

36

on the subject and how it assimilates politically, economically, and culturally

(Pannabecker, 1995).

Additionally, current professional development programs for teachers do not

always provide material, modeling, or follow-up training emphasizing sufficient

experience in integrating technology instructionally within classrooms. The Office of

Technology Assessment (OTA) reports that a low three percent of teachers from teacher

education programs are prepared to use technology instructionally (U.S. Congress Office

of Technology Assessment, 1995). Data from the U.S. Congress Office of Technology

Assessment (1995) has found that when teachers are not prepared to use technology

several consequences may occur: 1) attention is taken away from students because

teachers spend time understand and managing incorporation of technologies; secondly,

frustrated teachers may eliminate technology from instruction, and lastly, teachers may

hesitate to use technology to begin with due to lack confidence, self-efficacy, and/or

sufficient time to integrate the technology (U.S. Congress Office of Technology

Assessment, 1995).

Doering, Hughes, and Huffman (2003) state that if teachers’ feelings of

inadequacy continue to limit their integration of technology into instruction, then funds

will decrease. If funds decrease, then teachers and students will not have contextual tools

with which to learn and experience reinforcement of 21st century learning requirements.

If teachers do not receive continuous opportunities to learn about and become more

proficient with technology currently available for their classroom, then students may

become disruptive and disengaged (Doering, Hughes, & Huffman, 2003).

Surveys such as the Teachers Talk survey (CDW, 2006) shows that 88% of

teachers report using technology for more administrative tasks, than instructional tasks,

37

and 86% report using technology as a form of communication. Teachers feel

the pressure of having to develop lessons that include new technology tools for which

they do not feel properly trained (Brown & Brown, 2010; Childs, Sorensen, & Twidle,

2011). Participants in a number of studies acknowledged reluctance to seek classroom

technology integration assistance from qualified, on-site technology coordinators

(Birkenhoff, 2006). Some teachers noted that many technology coordinators were

already busy teaching their own classes. Teachers also added that their professional

development programs provided introductions or overviews of technology designated for

their classrooms; however, follow-up training or in-class support was absent (Brikenhoff,

2006).

Student Perspectives

Professionals, such as police officers, doctors, fire-fighters, and mechanics use

technology tools today that were not available in the past (Ertmer & Ottenbreit, 2010).

Cuban (2001) noted that many of today’s teachers continue to use the same outdated tools

that many of their predecessors used. The reason teachers continue to use these tools is

because the technology tools students’ use is rarely linked to student educational

achievement within an academic school year (Ertmer & Ottenbreit, 2010). The teacher

Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS) in the state of Texas requires

administrators to evaluate technology use in classrooms as a component of teacher

evaluations; but, many administrators approve use of projectors to display math problems

as acceptable technology use. Suki and Suki (2011) indicated teacher’s lack of

familiarity with mobile learning hinders student acceptance and use. Although teachers

lacked familiarity with mobile devices, students still found the use of mobile devices as a

tool to communicate, useful (Suki & Siki, 2011).

38

Professional Development and Technology

Bransford and Schwartz (1999) describe how teachers are professionals

responsible for continuously seeking ways to become experts in their field. Research on

computer use indicates that teachers primarily use computers and software programs as

productivity tools (Franklin, 2008). Franklin (2008) also adds that when teachers only

use technology for their administrative tasks, those tools become null and void as

technical and academic enhancers for students. Since research shows that teachers play a

not only a major role, but a primary role in student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2000;

Mosenthall, Lipson, Torncello, Russ, & Mekkelsen, 2004), the professional training they

receive is more important than ever.

Holden and Rada (2011) recognize that it is important for teachers to experience

the use of technology. The use of technology introduces opportunities for teachers to

experience the instructional benefits (Becker, 1994). When the use of technology

becomes second nature and natural teachers no longer view it as ‘one more thing to do;’

rather, they embrace it as an enhancement tool to their teaching and student learning

experiences (Clausen, 2007). The quality, experience, and depth of professional

development training may vary depending individual school districts’ resources and

environments (Aubusson, Schuck, & Burden, 2009).

Dawson (2003) proposes that the lack of technology training offered to teachers is

a response to resistance expressed by teachers concerned with converting their traditional

methods of teaching to technical, computer-based designs. Professional development

coordinators and technology coordinators must first understand curriculum expectations

in order to create technology courses that mimic actual classroom environments and these

courses must increase external factors such as self-efficacy (Holden, 2011). Holden

39

(2011) supported this statement by adding, the direct positive influence on self-

efficacy in teachers may indirectly increase teacher acceptance when using technology.

In 1999, a grant opportunity was established to support organizational change in teacher

education. Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers (PT3) was established by the US Department

of Education to prepare future teachers on all classroom components (Judge &

O’Bannon, 2008). These components are not limited to classroom management, but also

included technology integration.

Instructional technology involves multiple areas within the technology field.

Merkley, Bosik, and Oakland (1997) conducted a study that found that leaders failing to

promote technology resulted in teachers deselecting integration of technology into their

classrooms. Unfortunately, many teachers perceive that most administrators lack

knowledge and skills to provide them targeted verbal feedback and modeling on

appropriate methods to use with students (Dawson & Rakes, 2003).

Availability of Mobile Devices

In 2010 Apple reported record sales on their handheld technology tools. The iPad

helped Apple generate $15.7 billion in sales and a profit of $3.25 billion during the

company’s fiscal third quarter (Michael & Snell, 2010). The production of tablets is not

limited to the Apple because Hewlett Packard (HP) and Samsung have also created

versions of the SmartTablet and have sold impressive numbers of their products to

businesses, individuals, and educational institutions (Michael & Snell, 2010). In a

research study conducted by Williams and Stapleton (2010) advantages were realized that

included enhanced learning opportunities and reduced perishable supply expenditures

such as dry erase markers, overhead projectors and films (transparencies) as a result of

40

multiple usage of Tablet Personal Computers (PC’s) within their educational

environments.

Mobile devices are different from other technology equipment because they

represent a less expensive option for putting computers in the hands of students (Alexiou-

Ray, 2006). Concepts such as, “bring your own device,” are becoming common practices

for many school districts (Walling, 2012). Based on the research findings, allowing

students to use their personal Smartphone or other handheld devices in classrooms may

eliminate costs to schools, and allow access to technology that would be unavailable if

the investment was the sole responsibility of school districts or classroom teachers.

Mobile/e-Learning with Mobile Devices

Using devices such as smart phones, iPads, and iPods in education is often

referred to as mobile learning or m-learning. Many researchers find m-learning to be a

very popular topic which can be defined very differently from person-to-person (Keskin

& Metcalf, 2011). Previous definitions of what mobile learning encompasses included

mobile devices such as Smartphones, PDAs, MP3 players, digital cameras, and voice

recording tools (Keskin & Metcalf, 2011). Other definitions or perceptions regarding

mobile usage concluded that mobile learning should be restricted to smaller devices

capable of being carried around without becoming a distraction to other students and

teachers (Keagan, 2005).

Learning Theories and Teaching Models

Kopcha (2008) researched a systems-based approach for guiding teachers through

the integration of technology. In his study, Kopcha found that teachers are more

successful when they use a more student-centered approach to learning. Kopcha (2008)

states that using technology to support student-centered learning is necessary based on

41

data supporting this method of teaching which demonstrates that student-

centered learning has a positive impact on student performance. Initial set-up, teacher

preparation, curricular reform, and community of practices were the four stages of

technology integration discovered in Kopcha’s (2008) research. Instrumental in

understanding techniques to address needed teacher support, these four stages deal with

mechanics, systems, culture, and curriculum in education (Kopcha, 2008). The

mechanics address issues with set-up and methods used by technicians to trouble-shoot

technology. Whereas, the focus for the systems stage emphasizes creation of standards,

or practices that encourage teachers to manage time and unavoidable concerns that may

arise during delivery of lessons. Attitudes and beliefs held by teachers and administrators

may have created this culture; however, the focus of curriculum is to ensure that teachers

understand the purpose and appearance of technology when fully integrated into

classroom lessons (Ertmer, 1999; Fordham & Vannata, 2004; Hew &Brush, 2007).

Researchers associate non-working classroom technology and poor teacher

attitudes toward it as a barrier to classroom technology. “When teachers are given

devices that have not been correctly set-up, or fail to perform to expectations, interest in

device is lost; and, furthermore, their interest in future opportunities may be met with the

fear of experiencing the same results” (Kopcha, 2008, p. 180). Enacting steps to ensure

that technology is working and up-to-date prior to teacher use is likely to eliminate

negative attitudes that could arise when new devices are introduced to classrooms.

Norris, as quoted by Kopcha (2008) surveyed approximately 4,000 teachers in

grades kindergarten through twelve and found that the largest barrier toward technology

integration for teachers was outdated and non-working technology. Creating systems

designed to remove teacher frustrations when directing students to use technology must

42

also be considered because in-place systems will increase teacher confidence in

device capabilities and non-interference with successfully teaching lessons. Kopcha

(2008) found that peer interaction and reaction to technology is also a part of developing

organizational culture. Kopcha (2008) suggests creating a team that not only supports the

technology efforts of the campus, but also plays an integral role to ensure policies are

created, funding is available and campus goals are set with on-going communication and

training.

Research conducted by Lei and Zhao (2007) supports Kopcha by adding that in a

population of 130 middle school students, of the 130, those who applied newly learned

technology methods to projects for data manipulation and/or constructing knowledge

models experienced an increase in academic success for that school year. Although

Kopcha (2008) found student-centered teaching practices to be successful, conclusions

from his studies suggest that more research is needed on this topic.

Student Learning and Teacher Instruction Models

Gagné (1965) described learning as a change in the disposition or capability that

is retainable and produces growth. Learning technology in the educational environment

can also be classified under the same description provided by Gagné over 46 years ago.

Gagné went on to describe using elements such as cognitive schemas to guide student

learning. Associating several learning theories with mobile learning, Metcalf and

Ozdamar (2011) included Congnitivism, Constructivism, Situated Learning,

Behaviorism, Problem-Based Learning, Lifelong Learning, Activity Theory, Informal

Learning, Connectivism, Navigationis, and Location-based learning. Ertmer and

Ottenbreit (2010) found that as teachers understand how student learning can be

positively influences by the behavior, knowledge, and beliefs, their teaching may be more

43

effective.

Cognitivist learning. Employs the reorganizing of cognitive structures through

which human’s process and store learned information (Good & Brophy, 1990; Keskin &

Metcalf, 2011). This type of learning model may be beneficial to teachers integrating

technology into their lesson plans. The focus on cognitive learning includes images,

audio, video, text, and animations (Keskin & Metcalf, 2011). Instructionally, technology

may have more of impact when teachers use these examples of cognitive learning while

simultaneously using mobile devices in their classrooms (Keskin & Metcalf, 2011).

Constructivist learning. Takes place when learners use their current and past

knowledge to construct ideas or new concepts (Bruner, 1966; Keskin & Metcalf, 2011).

When using mobile devices teachers can incorporate programs or applications (apps) that

are in the form of games, simulations, and virtual realities. There are a number of

applications (apps) on Smart Tablets and Smartphone’s that teachers can use to reinforce

this learning and teaching method. Bruner (1966) states the focus of this learning theory

is geared towards problem solving, collaboration and interaction, and communication on

mobile devices.

Behaviorist learning. This occurs when a learner exhibits the appropriate

responses associated with specific reinforcements to learning (Smith & Ragan, 2005).

Based on the research conducted by Smith and Ragan (2005) this concept is most

effective when mobile devices are used to reinforce language learning in the form of

tests, practices and quizzes, listening and speaking practices. On many mobile devices,

or mobile learning tools, teachers can use applications such Dragon Dictation, Spell

Buddy, and Quick Voice so that students can listen to pre-recorded pronunciations of

words or passages. Teachers may also ask students to record passages, listen and critique

44

themselves, then re-record again and listen for improvement.

The aforementioned findings were included in this section to provide supporting

evidence of teachers and students having integrated technology in K-12 classroom

environments. Integration is occurring; however, the amassing literature evidences gaps

between student and teacher perceptions, teacher self-efficacy and the need to conduct

additional research furthering the identification of reasons why teacher use of technology

in classrooms remains very low. Fang, Hartsell, Herron, and Rathod (2010) suggest that

in terms of rapid expansion of technology education, teachers today are often behind the

curve on meeting the pressing challenges of using technology tools. The researchers also

added that while tools may be available to teachers, some technology tools are more

likely to be used than others.

Conclusions

Teachers admit that they do not know how to use many of the tools given to them;

and, without targeted training, they lack the confidence to effectively use any technology

component (Fang, Hartsell, Herron, & Rathod, 2010). A number of research studies

concluded that with the addition of in-service education followed by long-term support,

teachers will be able to gradually apply what they learned resulting in increased

confidence relating to continued instructional use of technology in their classrooms

(Watson, 2006).

Teacher self-efficacy remains important and can negatively affect student learning

and teacher confidence when using technology. Teachers displaying high self-efficacy

can yield a positive impact in student learning and achievement, while low self-efficacy

can result in lower impact and achievements. Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, and Hannay (2001)

conducted a study of students in grades K-5 to determine how changes in teacher

45

computer efficacy affected their learning. The researchers concluded that when

teachers exhibited high self-efficacy, but low levels of technology integration students

did not improve academically; but, when teachers exhibited low levels self-efficacy and

high levels of technology integration improvements were observable in student academic

skills (Ross et al., 2001). Most employers expect up-to-date technology usage from the

professionals who deliver services in their business; therefore, the same expectation

prevails for teachers to be up-to-date on technology being integrated and applied in their

curriculums (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Hannay, 2001).

Summary

In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed to

ensure that funds were available for schools to afford to integrate technology (U.S.

Department of Education, 2005). By the late 1990s it was anticipated that technology

capabilities would ensure interchangeability with all aspects of computer components

(Dettelis, 2010). By 2001 companies such as Apple were producing and selling record

numbers of mobile devices that were being introduced into learning environments

(Michael & Snell, 2010). Teachers continued to lack the professional development and

self-efficacy to enable them to integrate technology into instructional design in a manner

that would lead to increased student academic performance and technical skills (Abbitt,

2011; Alexiou-Ray, 2006; Brockmeier, et al., 2010).

Chapter 2 presents an analysis of past and present literature regarding computer

use and mobile devices in classrooms. Historical information regarding technology in

education was presented then followed by current findings on four topics: teacher self-

efficacy, mobile technology, professional development, and learning/teaching models

46

using mobile devices in classrooms. Chapter 2 also addressed the lack of

research on student perspectives of teacher instructional technology integration.

47

Chapter 3: Method

Research Method and Design Appropriateness

When determining design appropriateness for this research study, several models

were considered; but, the phenomenological study allowed the researcher to describe

their lived experiences in-depth by using interviews versus quantitative approaches which

may solely view the statistical data (Tellis, 1997; Creswell, 2009). Research

methodology refers to the broad perspective from which to view, investigate, and draw

inferences on the identified problem (Simon, 2011). Because technology, such as mobile

devices, are very new and often introduced with a limited amount of accompanying

research, this may qualify them as being defined as a phenomena. The qualitative

method is seen as a tool that can help researchers understand phenomena (Griffiths,

1996).

A phenomenology is a type of qualitative research design that identifies

phenomena through observing and studying persons affected by the situations (Lester,

1999). This phenomenological design of research allows the use of data collection

methods purposefully selected to interpret daily experiences in the lives of teachers using

mobile devices in their classrooms. Data collected may also provide insight and

understanding as to why teachers are not effectively integrating mobile devices into their

classrooms. In this research design data was collected through interviews and

observations. Following the phenomenological research method as stated by Moustakas

(1994), the researcher used epoche throughout each interview to create an atmosphere in

which the participant felt comfortable with the researcher. Mapp (2008) defines this

process as bracketing, and researchers set aside any assumptions.

48

Each participant was interviewed using seven open-ended interview

questions. The data collected from the interviews was analyzed using a qualitative

software program called NVivo 9. At the conclusion of each interview, the researcher

scheduled a time to observe the participant using mobile devices in the classroom to

provide a better understanding of the lived experiences teachers shared. An observation

was conducted for each participant using an observation checklist (Appendix G). The

observation checklist allowed the researcher to observe the participant using mobile

devices in their classroom and document. Each of these methods of data collection may

yield detailed information beneficial to understanding teachers when integrating

technology in classrooms and provide confirmability.

In order to uncover teacher thoughts, feelings, and beliefs regarding mobile

devices and technology integration in K-5 classrooms, a purposive sampling was matched

to appropriate the design. Purposive sampling using a phenomenological approach will

encourage the manifestation of the current phenomena to take place within the natural

environments of participants. “A qualitative design provides the researcher with

opportunities to conduct detailed examinations of problems in the natural setting in which

they are occurring” (Newman, 2006, p.151). By using this approach possible themes

such as tenure, age, number of years of classroom experience, and education level may be

uncovered as possible factors influencing teachers’ attitudes and experiences serving as

determinants for instructional use of technology tools. This also increases the

dependability of the research, by allowing the study to be easily replicated in future

research studies. Newman (2006) classifies the qualitative approach of research as a

design that allows the researcher to look at problems as motifs, ideas, or distinctions,

instead of classifying them as variables as found in quantitative research.

49

Research Questions

Qualitative research seeks to explore complex sets of factors surrounding a central

phenomenon and alluding to varieties of perspectives and meanings expressed by

participants (Creswell, 2009). The study explored the phenomena of teacher perceived

barriers that may interfere with effective integration of mobile devices into classroom

instruction. The best approach for uncovering the perceived barriers was to conduct

interviews with teachers currently using these devices. Interviews and observations were

conducted for the purpose of identifying barriers held in common by teachers and viewed

as leading reasons for failing to integrate use of mobile devices. Leedy and Omrod

(2010) suggest that when conducting interviews for the purpose of research the number

questions should be limited to between five and seven.

The following research questions were used for this qualitative phenomenological

research study:

R1: What (perceived) barriers cause teachers to avoid the use of mobile devices

as a part of their classroom instruction?

R2: How do these barriers interfere with the integration of mobile devices into

teachers’ instruction?

The variables for this study may include these potential barriers: self-efficacy,

teacher attitudes, and teacher beliefs. Each variable may be impacted by additional

barriers which will also need to be addressed. For example, time may be a single

variable; however, teachers may experience one or both of these variations: (1) lack of

time to use technology within a lesson, and/or (2) lack of time to attend training to learn

the components and how to use the device. Appendix F includes a list of the open-ended

interview questions that will be used to gather data to answer the research questions.

50

The expected outcome of this qualitative study was to provide data in

which administrators and professional development staff can use to create training

designed to diminish negative teacher attitudes toward using technology. The data may

help teachers recognize their perceived barriers; and, with that knowledge encourage their

pursuit of training to successfully integrate technology into their classrooms with limited

barriers. This research study is designed to observe and document K-5 teachers’

behaviors, attitudes and feelings toward integration and use of technology in their

classrooms.

Population

The target population for this study will be teachers in an elementary school in

Texas. The teachers will be certified in the state of Texas and will be instructing in grade

levels ranging from kindergarten to fifth grade. To eliminate bias teachers participating

in the study were representative of various races, genders, ages and ethnicity. This study

used two teachers from grades K-5 for a total of 12 participants. The school district is

comprised of over 40 schools serving grades K-12. On the elementary school campuses

teachers instruct grades kindergarten through five. The secondary campuses are

comprised of both middle school and high school students. The middle schools serve

grades six to eight; and, the high schools comprise grades nine through twelve.

The superintendent reviewed the Consent to Use Premises, Letter of

Collaboration, and other required forms required for approval to use district facilities and

interview teachers. Once approval was received from the superintendent campus

administrators will be contacted via email and/or telephone to explain the research study

and seek approvals for interviewing and observing selected classroom teachers. After the

school principal agreed to allow the study to be conducted on her campuses and the

51

Permission to Use Premises form was signed, discussions were initiated to

determine the best methods for contacting teachers and making presentations during

scheduled staff meetings (see Appendix J). Once the best method was determined,

teachers received information about the opportunity to participate in the study, and they

understood their participation was completely voluntary. An information meeting was

conducted first, afterwards all information regarding participation in the study was sent to

teachers via e-mail. The superintendent had the option of sending a communiqué to the

entire school district advising teachers and administrators about the study and their rights

as participants based on the informed consent.

Sampling Frame

Sample selection is important and must be done properly to ensure that the target

population has been well represented (Alreck & Settle, 2003). A purposive sample was

taken from an elementary campus that is representative of all 40 elementary campuses

within the school district. Since campuses in this school district are all uniformly

designed in terms of grade levels, certified teaching staff, number of administrators and

availability to technology resources, the population will not be misrepresented by using

only one school for purposive sampling. The sampling method is used to target a specific

group of teachers, and since the criteria for this study is for certified teachers who use

mobile devices, the purposive sampling method will be adopted for this study. In a

phenomenological research study participants can be drawn from only one location as

long as they have all experienced the same phenomenon (Creswell, 2007).

Teachers participating in the study were certified through the State Board of

Educator Certification for the state of Texas. And, they represented various grade levels

on their respective campus, varying degrees of teaching experience, and general

52

education experience. Although the participating teachers did not have to be

technology experts, they were required to have access to mobile devices in their

classrooms. Each elementary campus within the school district has access to technology

including mobile devices.

The teachers were all highly qualified based on the Texas Education Agency

(TEA) standards. TEA states the Teacher of Record must be highly qualified if they

provide direct instruction to students in any core academic area. The core academic

subject areas include English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign

languages (languages other than English), civics and government, economics, arts,

history, and geography. By TEA standards, the highly qualified teacher must

• Hold at least a bachelor’s degree;

• Be fully certified to teach in Texas; and

• Demonstrate competency in their core academic subject area (TEA, 2011).

The number of teachers sought to participate in the research sample were derived

from the total number of full-time teachers for the individual school campus. There were

a total of 12 teachers: two teachers from grades K-5. The district superintendent and

campus administrators were asked for their approval to allow staff members of the

participating facility to receive study-related distributions via their school email

addresses. When agreements were received, the principals provided the researcher with a

campus-specific roster of certified teachers and their email addresses. An information

letter was given to the participants explaining the study and noting contact information

for the qualitative researcher conducting the study (see Appendix C).

53

Informed Consent

The informed consent form was provided in several ways (see Appendix B). At

an informational staff meeting teachers received a copy of the informed consent form

which stated the purpose of the study and the volunteer status of study participants. Once

teachers agreed to participate in the study they completed the form and returned it to the

qualitative researcher. Subsequently, participants received an email acknowledgement

and an interview scheduler form from which they selected their individual interviews and

classroom observation (see Appendix E). Interviews took place before or after school on

their approved campus. The informed consent form was attached to the participants’

email correspondence; and, it was made available prior the start of each interview

prompting participants to ask clarifying questions regarding the consent process.

Teachers understood their participation was voluntary, and their information would

remain confidential. Teachers also understood their participation was completely

voluntary and they could withdraw from the study at any time.

Confidentiality

Potential participants from the target population received a statement of

confidentiality form during a principal approved faculty meeting that took place on the

participants’ campus (see Appendix H). The potential participants had the opportunity to

review the form, ask questions, and sign their forms prior to the meeting conclusion and

the collection of signed forms was completed. Individuals who agreed to sign the

informed consent statement received an information letter. The letter was sent via e-mail

and described the research study and invited them to schedule an interview date/time, as

well as, to select their preferred method of communication (see Appendix E).

54

Participants received an alphanumeric code which will incorporate the

letter P (for the word participant) and a participant number (1-12) based on the numerical

number that corresponds with the order in which their signed informed consent form was

received. This coding system allowed teachers anonymity. It also served as an identifier

to remove participants who wish to withdraw from the study. By assigning the code once

the informed consent forms were received the researcher could properly indentify and

remove participants who chose to withdraw at the beginning of the study, as well as

during, and after the study. The alphanumeric code was not included in any

correspondence with the participants to ensure no one could decode the identities of the

participants. The alphanumeric code was used to code both the interview and

observation. Participants were observed within their normal classroom environments;

and, each participant was assigned the alphanumeric code that corresponded with their

interview data. The data will remain locked in a secure cabinet in the interviewers home

office for three years. Once the study was completed the data, which includes the

interview audio recordings and the observations will be shredded.

Geographic Location

The study took place in a suburban school district in northern Texas. One

elementary campus was solicited for participation and a total of 12 teachers from the

campus were willing to participate in the study. The school district follows standards that

require all campuses from elementary to high school to be set-up based on the same

standards. Each elementary campus is comprised of grades kindergarten through five;

each middle school includes grades six through eight; and, each high school includes

grades nine through twelve.

55

Data Collection

“For studies in educational settings most data collection techniques consist of

observations, interviews, or a combination of the two” (Best, 2006, p.264). The data for

this study was collected by employing both interviews and observations. Using these

methods provided in-depth understanding of the perceptions held by teachers regarding

existing barriers to technology use based on their lived experiences. Participants received

an information letter (Appendix C) that described the interview process to ensure they

understood the interview would last approximately 30-45 minutes. An interview

scheduler (Appendix E) and a copy of the interview protocol (Appendix D) were also

available for review and contained six demographic questions.

By conducting interviews with teachers instead of merely collecting data, the

qualitative researcher developed dialogue with participants and encouraged their

willingness to fully and openly discuss their views of technology without reservations.

Marshall and Rossman (2011) argued that lived experiences of individuals can only be

understood when the facilitator who assigned the meaning has opportunity to describe the

experience. Since a quantitative approach does not allow individuals to elaborate on their

lived experiences a qualitative study was the most appropriate vehicle for this study.

Interviews. Best (2006) described ambiguity as an important component of the

interview process, and participants should understand that the researcher does not hold

preconceived notions towards the study’s outcomes. Prior to being interviewed each

participant received an informative letter outlining the intent of the research study. A

standardized, open-ended interview was conducted with each participant. “In an open-

ended interview all participants respond to the same predetermined questions providing

each of them with the opportunity to expound in as much detail as they wish to share”

56

(Turner, 2010, p. 755). This type of interview made it easier to uncover themes

from the participants’ responses, which would not happen in informal conversational

interviews. Appendix F contains the open-ended interview questions. Studies that focus

on experiences lived by the individuals usually rely on in-depth interviews supplemented

by other data such as questionnaires and observations (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). The

main objective of a phenomenological study is to capture participants’ experiences in

their own words and with their personal meanings (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

With the participants’ consent each interview was recorded using a voice recorder

on an iPad. The application (app) used to record the interviews is called QuickVoice Pro.

Once each interview was completed it was e-mailed to a secure account as a QuickTime

recording and subsequently archived to a secure USB flash drive. Teachers who did not

feel comfortable being recorded had the option to eliminate that process step, but all

teachers were comfortable being recorded. Recording the interviews was beneficial in

these three ways: (1) ensured accuracy of information shared and analysis of data; (2) did

not exclusively rely on the interviewer’s recall of the full interview content; and (3)

conclusions were not be impaired by the limitations of recall on the part of the researcher.

Observations. To gain the best picture of regular school day happenings, one 30-

45 minute block of time was set aside for observing each teacher using their day-to-day

resources. Classroom observations were documented using a 10 item observation

checklist (Appendix G). To ensure observational settings with which teachers and

students are accustomed, classroom assignments were in regular format with no changes,

or special arrangements (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002); and, the researcher was a non-

participatory observer. Research was conducted during a convenient time for individual

teachers as indicated by scheduling forms prior to launching the research study.

57

Participants were interviewed; and, the researcher allowed participants to

review the recorded interview, then follow-up with classroom observations. None of the

participants wanted to review their recorded interview.

The interview protocol (Appendix D) provided steps the participants may take to

withdraw from the study. If participants chose to withdraw from the study before the

interview their interview scheduler was updated stating the participant has withdrawn

from the study and no additional contact would have been made to the participant. If the

participant requested to withdraw during or after the study the researcher would identify

the participant by the alphanumeric code provided to the participant. The data collected

from the participant would have been removed from the envelope storing the research

data. A new secure envelope labeled “withdrawn” would have been used to store the

information for the participant that withdrew. The envelope would have been sealed and

secured in the researcher’s home office in the locked file cabinet with instructions to be

shredded after 3 years, on the same date the research data used for the study will be

shredded. No participant chose to withdraw before, after, or during the study.

Instrumentation

This qualitative study used interview questions (Appendix F) and an observation

checklist (Appendix G). “With research being conducted in the real-world the qualitative

researcher is the research instrument” (Gillham, 2007, p. 47), and is responsible for

applying data specifically collected from the instruments versus relying on recall. For

this study the qualitative researcher collected the data from in-depth interviews and

observations of teachers. Participants received an information letter (Appendix C) which

explained the purpose of the study and the procedures for collecting data and the steps to

follow in case they choose to withdraw from the study.

58

For this study a pilot study was conducted after the proposal was

approved, using sample questions to interview teachers whose environments and

experiences are similar to the target population. The pilot study questions were

correlated to the research problem as stated in Chapters 1 and 2. The pilot study involved

five technology integration facilitators who were former classroom teachers on the K-5

grade level. Using technology facilitators was reasonable based on the significance of

their field to the study. The pilot study participants signed an Informed Consent form

(see Appendix B), and read the information letter (see Appendix C) to understand the

purpose of the study. The pilot study participants also received an interview protocol

(see Appendix D). Any changes made to the seven open-ended interview questions

which supported the research questions would be based on the recommendations of the

reviews of the pilot study. After the pilot study was conducted, it was determined the

interview questions did not need to be changed, and the primary data collection took

place.

The interview included open-ended questions which encouraged participants to

speak freely and elaborate in detailed when responses. The purpose of this

phenomenological study was to uncover and understand the lived experiences of

individuals participating in the study. There were no risks, or preconceived stressors

associated with this study. The information letter (Appendix C) described steps to take in

case the participant felt at-risk or stressors arose.

Validity and Reliability

Qualitative research addresses credibility, transferability, dependability, and

confirmability (Trochim, 2006). To determine if the interview questions were relevant to

the study and adequate to uncover data linking to the research questions the qualitative

59

researcher created sample questions. The sample questions were tested with a

panel of five former teachers familiar with classroom practices and technology.

Internal validity. The internal validity relates to participants in the study having

received the same previously validated interview questions. Each participant experienced

the same amount of time for the interview and observation. Each interview question was

asked in the same order for each participant. This allowed the researcher to maintain

uniformity within the interview process.

External validity. The external validity was ensured by avoiding factors such as

inconsistent interview questions and recall time for participants. The external validity

was observed in the use of the audio recorder to preserve each interview that took place.

Teachers had the opportunity to listen to their recorded interviews and provide

clarification. The recorded interviews ensured that the qualitative researcher did not use

bias or misconstrue information by relying on recall. Notes from observations were

transcribed as soon as possible subsequent to interviews to confirm accurate recordings

(Gillham, 2007).

Data Analysis

Data analysis for this study involved several steps typical to a phenomenological

qualitative study. The data for qualitative analysis is derived from the data from the

interviews and observations. Notes derived from interviews and observations were

culminated in data to be assessed and uncover possible similarities and dissimilarities

among participants. Creswell (2009) proposed that qualitative researchers use the data

analysis stage to compile the data into themes or codes based on consistencies.

Moustakas (1994) states the data analyzed should consist of the described lived

experiences of the participant.

60

Yin (2009) stated that the investigation should have a general analytic

strategy suitable for guiding decisions toward what is to be analyzed through techniques

such as pattern-matching, explanation-building, and time-series analysis. Baxter and

Jack (2008) described five techniques that included: pattern-matching linking data to

propositions, explanation building, time-series analysis, logic models, and cross-case

syntheses. Trochim (2006) suggested that pattern matching implies more, and suggests

methods for validating research.

The data taken from interviews and observation were analyzed for themes and

opportunities for coding, and categories. Moustakas (1994) seven steps of the modified

van Kaam method were used throughout the data analysis.

1. Horizontalization

2. Invariant horizons

3. Individual textural descriptions

4. Individual structural descriptions

5. Composite textural description

6. Composite structural descriptions

7. Synthesis of meanings

Data reduction and interpretation took place within each step to derive meaning

from both interviews and observations. The collected data was logged into NVivo9

database. Using computer software within a qualitative research study can assist with

coding, clustering, and writing analytic memos, as well as, helping provide additional

questions about the coded data.

61

Summary

The focus of this phenomenological qualitative research study was to uncover

perceived barriers faced by K-5 teachers when using mobile technology as a part of

classroom instruction. By employing a phenomenological study the research being

conducted sought to understand the how and why without requiring behavioral control,

and focuses on contemporary events (Yin, 2009). Multiple techniques were used to

collect data from teachers to identify similarities or themes that arose as a result of

participants’ responses. Phenomenological methods allow individuals to bring their own

perspectives to the forefront in research. This challenges normative assumptions and

adds an interpretive dimension by enabling the research to be used as a basis for practical

theory that informs, supports, or challenges policies and actions (Lester, 1999).

Generalizability is the ability to extend the details and accounts of one person,

situation, or population into settings, times, and populations that are relevant to

parameters of the current study. The study may be generalized and replicated because the

participants were teachers that work with students and use mobile devices. Teachers are

readily accessible and can be located through any school district within the nation. The

approval steps may vary within different school districts; however, interviews can take

place and observations can be made at any campus and on any grade level. The validity

of the data collected was observable in the use of multiple sources of data. Creswell

(2009) noted that qualitative researchers collect multiple forms of data through

interviews, observations, and documents, instead of relying on a single data source, to

strengthen the research study.

62

CHAPTER 4: Results

The purpose of this qualitative, exploratory, phenomenological study was to

examine if the perceived barriers of teachers in a K-5 elementary school in Texas affect

their abilities to effectively integrate mobile devices into their classroom instruction.

Twelve elementary school teachers were the focus of the study. Two participants

volunteered to represent each grade level from the participating campus. Responses from

interview questions were used to find themes from the lived experiences of teachers who

use mobile devices in their classroom.

The purpose of Chapter 4 is to provide the results obtained from the data analysis.

The data was collected using in-depth interviews (see Appendix F) and observations

using an observation checklist (see Appendix G). Individuals participating in the study

agreed to be interviewed and observed at their participating campus. This chapter will

consist of a comprehensive data analysis of 12 interviews obtained from the 12 teachers

who volunteered to participate in this study, and 12 observations. A pilot study was

conducted prior to the interview with several technology facilitators to ensure the

interview process and research questions aligned with the central research question for

this study. The results may assist administrators, teachers, and educational leaders on all

levels, in creating professional development programs, curriculum, and policies to

improve the effectiveness of teachers integrating technology into the classroom.

Pilot Study

The pilot study took place prior to conducting the interviews for this study. There

were a total of six participants and they were selected based on their profession in the

school district. Each participant was familiar with using technology and was a former

teacher. Based on the responses from the pilot study, it was determined the interview

63

questions aligned with the study’s research question. This was determined

because the questions provided responses that answered the research questions developed

for this phenomenological study. From this determination the teachers who volunteered

to participate in the study were interviewed using the same questions that were used in

the pilot study. The data collected from the pilot study was not included in the data

analysis, or results of this study. The pilot study participants did not participate in actual

research study.

Sample

The sample for this study consisted of 12 elementary school teachers from an

elementary school in Texas. Two teachers from each grade level volunteered to

participate in the study by sharing their lived experiences and perceived barriers when

using mobile devices. The participants received information regarding the confidentiality

of the data they shared for this study and the ability to withdraw from the study at any

time (see Appendix H) through a staff meeting. In order to ensure the participants

responses remained confidential, the participants received a code that used an

alphanumeric identifier. The alphanumeric identifier consisted of the letter “P” for

participant and a number ranging from 1 to 12.

Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Using demographic data was not a requirement; rather it was used to provide

more insight on the participants of this study. The demographic data collected included

the age, gender, number of years teaching, how many years the participant has been a

full-time teacher, the grade level the teacher most recently taught, and for how many

years, what grades the teacher taught in the past, and whether or not the grade level being

taught was departmentalized. The following tables outline the demographic data.

64

Table 1

Participant’s Age Range

Age n Percent

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

3

6

3

0

25%

50%

25%

0%

61+

Total

0

12

0%

100%

Note. Demographic data: participant’s age range.

Participants ranged in age 21-50, and at least 50% of the participants were in the

range of 31-40. According the National Center for Education Information (2011):

Reversing a trend toward an older teaching force that began in the 1990’s, the proportion of teachers under 30 years of age rose dramatically from the 2005 survey to 2011, while the proportion of teachers 50 and older dropped. More than one in five (22 percent) teachers surveyed in 2011 was under the age of 30, compared with only 11 percent in 2005 and in 1996. The proportion of teachers 50 and older dropped from 42 percent in 2005 to 31 percent in 2011 (p.21)

Table 2

Gender Category

Gender n Percent

Male 0 0%

Female

Total

12

12

100%

100%

65

Note. Demographic data: gender.

The school population had a majority of female teachers. Female teachers were

the only participants in this study. Male teachers had the opportunity to volunteer, but

none self-selected to be a part of the study. The area of teaching in education is still

predominantly female occupation (National Center for Educator Information, 2011).

Table 3

Years as a fulltime teacher

Years n Percent

1 - 4 1 8%

5 - 9

9 -12

13+

Total

7

2

2

12

58%

17%

17%

100%

Note. Demographic data: total years as a fulltime teacher.

As reported by the National Center for Education (2011), the proportion of

teachers with 25 or more years’ experience dropped from 27 percent in 2005 to 17

percent in 2011. The participants of the study all had more than one year of service as a

teacher. The lowest number of years taught is two, and the highest number of years is 13.

The research study sought two teachers from each grade level at the participating campus.

As displayed in Table 4, each grade level was represented by two teachers.

66

Table 4

Current Grade Level

Grade Level n Percent

K– 2nd

3rd – 5th

Total

6

6

12

50%

50%

100%

Note. Demographic data: current grade level.

Data Collection

Several steps were taken to ensure the data was collected appropriately. The

administrators of the participating campus were contacted to schedule a meeting that

would allow the research study to be presented to the teachers and allow them an

opportunity to volunteer to participate. Before allowing teachers to schedule an interview

time, measures were taken to ensure the teachers were fulltime, certified classroom

teachers for grades kindergarten through fifth grade. Once the criterion was reviewed

and teachers agreed to participate, they were given an opportunity to schedule a time to

be interviewed. All interviews were conducted face-to-face and in the teachers’

classrooms, so they would feel comfortable with the interview process. It was also

necessary, so teachers would be more willing to participate knowing they did not have to

make special arrangements.

The participants who volunteered for the study were required to complete an

informed consent (see Appendix B). The informed consent was available for them to

review with the researcher during the interview. The informed consent was then placed

in a secure folder located in the interviewer’s office, and it also included the audio and

written transcript for each participant.

67

Data Generation and Analysis

The data was analyzed using a qualitative method that incorporated the NVivo 9

software and Microsoft Excel program. The NVivo 9 was used to organize and code the

data collected from the interview responses of each participant. The NVivo software

program is designed to support qualitative research. The program was a tool for

organizing data through classification and analyzing content collected from the data

collected from the in-depth interviews. The audio files from the interviews were

uploaded and reviewed within the program. As themes were discovered, nodes were

created to store and organize the information.

Prior to beginning the interview, each participant was read the interview protocol.

Each participant was also ensured the interview and the study was confidential, and they

had the opportunity to withdraw from the study at any time. During the interview, the

participants were allowed to ask clarifying questions. The teachers were interviewed in

their classroom to allow them to feel comfortable, and speak freely about their

experiences. The interviews were conducted without personal opinions influencing the

interviewees, to eliminate bias from occurring within the study.

Procedures

Several methods were used to prepare the data collected to be input into the

NVivo 9 software application, so the themes could be found. After each interview the

data was transcribed to ensure it was available for any participant that wanted to review

the transcript, or in case more questions arose that needed to be clarified. After all the

interviews were conducted and transcribed, the data was then disaggregated using the

NVivo 9 application. The first step was to upload the audio recordings to the system.

68

Once the audio recordings were uploaded, another transcription was completed

within the software program.

The NVivo 9 application was used as a tool to organize the data collected by the

researcher. After the audio recordings were transcribed again within NVivo 9, the data

was then reviewed and word frequency and themes were created. Once this process was

completed, NVivo 9 was used to search for word frequency. The results from the data

analysis identified five main themes: (a) time constraints, (b) inadequate number of

devices, (c) training (professional development), (d) lack of personal knowledge, and (e)

management issues.

Research Questions and Rationale

The research question that guided the study was: What is the teacher perceived

barriers when integrating mobile devices in the K-5 classroom? The participants

provided detailed responses that explained their lived experiences of this phenomenon

and provided more insight into what hinders them from using mobile devices in their

classroom. In addition to the main question, there were also two specific research

questions that relate back to the main research question:

R1: What (perceived) barriers cause teachers to avoid the use of mobile devices as

a part of their classroom instruction?

The interview results indicated that all teachers believe specific barriers that

caused them to avoid using mobile devices as a part of their classroom instruction. All

the participating teachers expressed a need to integrate technology in their classroom, but

found the constraints from time, management number of devices, training (professional

development), and their own personal knowledge were causing them to avoid using the

devices.

69

None of the teachers objected to using technology to support their

instruction. In fact, every teacher stated they understood the importance of needing to

provide the technology to students in an effective manner. The avoidance was seen when

teachers felt the technology was presented as additional task, versus being integrated into

the district curriculum standards.

R2: How do these barriers interfere with the integration of mobile devices into the

teachers’ instruction?

Teachers shared several ways in which the barriers interfered with how and if

they would integrate mobile devices into their instruction. Research question number

provided insight into the lived experiences of teacher barriers, and provided data that

answered the main research question for this study. For example, the number of devices

caused teachers to avoid using them in specific lessons because they found it to be more

of a distraction when only a small number of students were able to use the devices versus

the entire class. By acknowledging the number of devices is a barrier to some teachers,

the researcher was able to identify the teacher perceived barriers which were being

sought in the study. The lack of personal knowledge and training presented a problem

because teachers did not know how to trouble shoot devices that did not work. Many

teachers contributed factors such as age, not owning the devices themselves, or not

having an opportunity to take the device home, and time as reasons they lacked the

personal knowledge needed to use the devices effectively.

Findings

This qualitative study sought to gather the lived experiences of teachers in the K-5

classroom to understand their perceived barriers when using mobile devices in their

classroom. The findings are divided into two sections. The first section presents the

70

results of the observation checklist. The second section contains the results of

the face-to-face interviews. Tables, charts, and quotes are included to represent the

themes identified throughout the data analysis. The NVivo 9 software program was used

to assist with coding and themes. The software program was also used to organize the

interview data and search for word frequency. By using the NVivo 9 software to search

for word frequency themes surfaced, and patters began to emerge. From the patterns,

specific categories began to form and provided more insight into the participant’s

responses.

Observation findings. Eight predetermined responses were used to observe

teachers in their natural classroom environment to obtain a clearer picture of their lived

experience when using mobile devices in the classroom. Teachers provided information

based on their perspective, and the observation checklist supported the data shared by the

participants. The observation checklist (see Appendix G) observed the following

behaviors exhibited by teachers: (1) demonstration of continuous use of mobile devices

throughout the classroom instruction, (2) display confidence while using mobile devices,

(3) appears comfortable using technology, (4) appears frustrated using technology, (5)

sought support if/when technology failed, (6) displays knowledge about the mobile

device, (7) can answer questions students have about the device, and (8) if problems

occur with mobile devices, the subject continues to work through it.

The following data was derived from the classroom observation.

Item #1: Subject demonstrates continuous use of mobile device throughout the

classroom instruction. Nine of the twelve participants continuously use the mobile

device of their choice throughout the classroom instruction. Some participants such as P3

71

worked with a student in one-on-one instruction, and a few of the participants,

such P2 and P4 instructed an entire classroom of students using two to three iPods and

one iPad.

Item #2: Displays confidence while using mobile devices. Seven of the twelve

participants, or 58% displayed confidence while using the mobile device in their

classroom, and 42% of the participants did not. P1 and P7 described that they feel more

comfortable using mobile devices in their classroom because they have the same device

at home. P1 stated she uses her devices with her personal children, so it is a natural

transition to use the device with her students. P1 also stated, “Although there are

barriers, they do not affect her ability to use the devices in her classroom.” P7 stated, “I

have time to play with the apps because I have my own personal device. I also take it

upon myself to attend more professional development than what is required, so I can take

the technology classes. Most people aren’t willing to do that.”

Four of the twelve participants did not display confidence when using the mobile

device with their students. For example, P12 did not appear confident when using the

device with her student in one to one instruction. She was able to get the student on the

iPad for the activity, but she really didn’t integrate it into the overall instruction. During

the interview P12 stated, “My students are not interested in using the iPad, because I

really don’t know how to integrate it in a way to make it more interesting.” This

behavior was displayed during her classroom observation. P9 also did not display

confidence, she stated, “I do not use the mobile devices a lot. Using the devices is kind

of scary.”

Item#3: Subject appears comfortable using technology. The results were

identical to the aforementioned observation. The same participants, who showed

72

confidence in the second point, also appeared comfortable when using

technology. The same participants who did not show confidence, also felt

uncomfortable.

Item#4: Subject appears frustrated. The majority of the participants did not

appear frustrated as the used the technology with their students. Each participant used

and i-device with their students, and the instruction was either one to one, or whole

group. Eight of the twelve participants, or 68%, did not show any sign of frustration. At

one point during her observation, P3 could not find an app, but she assured the student

jokingly that she would find it, and she never once became frustrated. She quickly

remembered where the app was located, and started the lesson. P6, appeared to show

frustration at times, but it was not consistent. P9 and P12 appeared to show frustration

with using the device throughout the entire observation.

Item #5: Subject sought support. Throughout the 12 observations the technology

only failed three of the twelve times. Each time the technology failed to work as the

teacher needed or expected it to, they did seek support. For the remaining nine

observations the technology did not fail, so it was documented as not applicable for 75%

of the participants.

Item #6: Subject displays knowledge. All of the participants displayed some

knowledge about the mobile device. Some participants displayed more knowledge than

others, but each participant’s knowledge level was displayed by the way they integrated

the device in their classroom instruction. For example, P1 and P7 are very comfortable

with the mobile devices in their classroom. Their students used mobile devices to

recreate a writing assignment using an app that allowed them to create a video using

73

images and their voice. While some of the more novice teachers, only used the

device to complete a simple task associated with the assignment.

Item #7: Subject can answer questions. One of the twelve teachers, P9, could

not answer a question about the device when asked by a student. The teacher did not

seek help or try to work through it, but this may be due to the fact that the school day was

coming to an end. The remaining 92% did not receive questions from their students;

therefore this item was marked as not applicable.

Item#8: If a problem occurs with the mobile device, subject works through it.

During the classroom observation four of the 12 teachers experience some form of a

problem while integrating the mobile in their classroom. As mentioned before, P9 did

not work through the problem that occurred during her instruction. P1, P3, and P11 also

had problems occur, but they worked through it by either seeking support from tech

support, or they resolved the issue themselves.

Interview findings. Each teacher was asked the same set of seven questions (see

Appendix F). A summative outline represents the results of the responses from the

interviews.

Question 1: When using mobile devices in the classroom, do you feel there are

certain barriers that do not allow you to fully implement the devices into your

classroom instruction? There were several common themes discovered in question

number one. The themes are as follows: Theme 1: time, theme 2: number of devices,

theme 3: management, theme 4: technology needs to be integrated into the curriculum,

theme 5: security, and theme 6: lack of knowledge. Of the 12 teachers interviewed, more

than half of them identified time as being one of the barriers that interferes with the

devices being fully implemented. Although seven of the twelve participants, or 58%, of

74

the teachers mentioned time as a barrier, there were several variables associated

with time. For example, P2 stated there is not enough time to integrate the mobile

devices into the classroom. P 2 added,

“District requirements don’t allow for technology devices to be used in the classroom. The lessons don’t require the use of technology.” P4 stated

“The most prevalent barrier is time and thinking about how to integrate into the curriculum we currently have in the district.” Participant 4, also went on to say there is no time to find ways to integrate the

mobile devices into the required lessons, and this requires more planning, which is

something she does not have the time for.

P4:“If the lessons were written in a way that presents suggestions on how to use mobile devices then time wouldn’t be a factor.” Participant 5 adds, “There is so much on the devices, so I need more time to find what’s on the device and how it will work with my students.” P7 stated,

“The time it takes some items to load is often a barrier. Time management is also a barrier.”

More specifically time management becomes an issue when passwords do not

work. She also mentioned the lack of time to teach herself how to use the applications so

she can help her students is a barrier.” P7 went on to explain that time outside of school

to practice on the device is not an option, and during the day she is too busy. She stated

that because she does not have her own personal iPad it hinders her from being able to

familiarize herself with the device.

P8 stated time is a barrier because there is not enough ownership of the device.

She added that time would not interfere as much if teachers were allowed to set up the

75

devices themselves, instead of having to filter through a number of apps that

are not age appropriate for her students.

P8: “There is too much out there. You need someone who is savvy with the device, and can tell you what’s good. Management of the device needs to be given to teachers to tailor the apps to their class. If this is not an option, then the tech person should say what apps are good for each grade level, or give a list that tells what apps is grade level appropriate.” P12 described her lack of time as interference for attending technology trainings.

Figure 1: Barriers Affecting the Use of Mobile Devices

Question 2: How do the barriers you discussed in question number one affect

your ability to use mobile devices within you instruction? Teachers listed several ways

in which the barriers affect their ability to use mobile devices within their instruction. P1

stated that although there are barriers, the barriers do not affect her ability to integrate the

device. Although she felt it does not affect her ability, certain barriers can change how,

and if she integrates the device with her students. P1: “The barriers don’t affect my

ability to use the devices.” P1 described ability as whether, or not she is capable of using

the device. P1 felt the ability to use the device is present, but P1 was not always sure if it

is effective, because of the security concerns.

P2 stated her ability to use mobile devices within her instruction is affected,

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Time Management Devices Knowledge Security Curriculum

Question #1

76

“Because of what's required by our district. I have to be the one to figure out how to use the technology within my instruction. I have to figure out how I can implement the device into the required instruction for the day.” P2 stated the district should align the technology expectations with the

curriculum, and if they did this, then her ability to integrate mobile devices into her

classroom would not be affected. The lack of devices was also described as being a

barrier in question number one and it affected the teachers’ ability to integrate mobile

device because, as P3 stated, the equipment was not always available because some

teachers have to share.

P3 added

“There are limitations with the iPads because they are not always available for us to use. The number of devices is the biggest barrier.”

P3 also stated she wanted more knowledge about what is out there, and how she can use

it.

“My personal knowledge is a barrier. My knowledge may be limited because of my age because I did not grow up with the technology like many of the younger teachers that are teaching. I feel as if I don’t know as much as they do.” Additional responses were provided by P5 and P9.

P5 stated

“The management is an issue, and I need to find a better system. Knowing the apps is also a concern. I need to take the time to look through them a little more. I could give better instruction if I spent more time going through the apps. Time is also a barrier and not having the information already integrated add more time.”

P9 added

“Managing the device is an issue, and when the device does not work I won’t use it. My lack of knowledge about the iPad and the apps affect my ability to use the devices.” Question 3: Can you name (or describe) some of the mobile devices you use

with your students’ and how the devices are integrated into your curriculum? Each

77

teacher was able to name at least one mobile device they are currently using

with their students. All teachers, 100%, stated they have access to at least one iPad to use

with their students. The themes for this question were: Theme 1: iPad, Theme 2: iPod,

and Theme 3: Macbook. P1 uses the iPod touch and iPad for the dictionary and other

instructional purposes. She allows her students to use the iPad to create characters with

apps, such as PuppetPals, with their writing assignments. P2 uses the Macbook, the iPad,

and iPod touches in literacy stations. P2 also uses the iPod as a part of 504 writing

accommodations.

P2: “Some students require spelling accommodations and the iPod has apps that allow the students to spell check anytime they are writing to help with spelling.” P3 uses the Macbook and the iPad for math stations, while P4 uses the iPod touch

for performing math calculations during whole class instruction and P4 also uses the iPod

during math stations. P5 used the devices in several areas of her classroom instruction.

P5:“I use the iPad every day for both language and math centers (stations). I use the Macbook for SumDog Math, Dovewhisper, or listening to TumbleBooks. My students and I also use the iTouches (iPod touch) for the QR reader.”

P6 has access to the iPad, but said she does not use it as much, because she had to

share the device with her grade level.

P6 stated,

“The iPad is used for busy work and a reward instead of integrating it into her instruction. It may is sometimes used as a reward. I usually put my students on it so she can work with other students. My goal is to integrate the technology with the curriculum, but I haven’t had a chance to do so yet.” P7 uses the video and voice recording with students on the iPad, iPod touch, and

Macbook. P7 allows students to use the spelling apps and to revise stories the students

have written.” P8 also used the Macbook and iPad. She allows her students use the

Macbooks to conduct research, write papers, math stations, the thesaurus and dictionary,

78

power point, and movies. P8 adds she is less familiar with the iPad and also

scared of it. She has not integrated the device into her lessons as much as she has with the

Macbook. Participant 9 uses the Macbook for centers (stations) and the iPads are rarely

used.

P9: “We rotate five iPads within the teachers, but we only get three at a time, so I put mine in my closet and don’t really use them. Having to share the devices causes conflict, so I use the iPad as an incentive.” P10 and P11 mainly integrate the iPad into their centers for math and literacy

work. P10 divides the five iPads used in her classroom three to two in literacy and math

centers. She also integrates the iPad into tutoring, and finds it is easier to have the

students share when the groups are smaller.

Unlike P10, P11 only uses one iPad, and it is used as a center (station), so

students work on the device in a one to one environment.

P11: “Students can choose a game (on the iPad) as they work in the center. I want to incorporate it more into my teaching next year. Using the iPod touch is a goal for next year as well.”

Figure 2: Mobile Devices used in Classroom

Question 4: When using the mobile device(s) with students what are some of the

factors that personally affect how you use them on an ongoing basis? Lack of

knowledge, lack of devices, and inability to management devices were the three themes

0%

50%

100%

150%

iPad iPod Macbook

Question #3: Can you name (or describe) some of the mobile devices you use with

your students’ and how the devices are integrated into your curriculum?

79

that emerged from the data associated with question three. Teachers felt the

barriers personally affected how and whether or not they use mobile devices on an

ongoing basis.

Theme 1: Lack of knowledge.

P1: “I feel if I am more knowledgeable about the device it will allow me to feel more comfortable using the devices with students.” P3: “My personal knowledge of the devices affects my ability to use the devices on an ongoing basis. I really don’t know what does what.” P3 adds the school district expects her to be knowledgeable on how to mobile

devices in her instruction because they include it in the lesson plans, but they do not offer

training that will increase her knowledge, and allow her to use the device consistently.

P6 also stated her limited amount of knowledge when using mobile devices inhibits her

from using the device with her students daily. P9 and P12 also felt their lack of personal

knowledge affected how and if they used mobile devices with their students consistently.

Theme 2: Inadequate number of devices.

P2: “All the kids want to use them, but there is not enough. This causes conflict with the kids. I try to have a check off sheet with the kids to make sure everyone gets time to use the technology”. P6: “I use the iPod, and having to share the device is a barrier because someone else always has them. If I had the devices for my classroom, then I could implement a routine, but because I don’t, then I’d rather not use them.” P6 concluded her response by stating, “Having a class set would allow me to use

them more and consistently.” P10 stated the inadequate number of devices interfered

with how she used the devices on an ongoing basis because she has to share, which often

means it will be weeks before she has them in her class again. P11 also found that the

devices could not be used consistently in her kindergarten class because she has one iPad,

for 24 students.

80

Theme 3: Management issues.

P4, P5, P7, P8, and P11 all described ways on how managing the mobile devices

personally affects their ability to use the device on an ongoing basis. P5 and P11

described managing the devices as providing enough time for students to use them. P7

and P8 described managing as monitoring students for inappropriate behavior and

devices for inappropriate content. P8 states the inappropriate behavior interferes with her

using the mobile device ongoing, but P7 found that it did not.

P7: “From time to time you have students that don’t use the devices appropriately so it runs into a management issue. Kids may be playing a random game when given the device, so they are off task. But this doesn’t affect me from wanting to use the device. Regardless of the off task behavior I use the device on an ongoing basis.”

P11 found the overwhelming amount of apps to be an issue because she does not

know how to use within her curriculum.

P11: “There is also an overwhelming amount of apps that you can use. There are so many, millions of them.”

Figure 3: Factors that Personally Affect the Use of Mobile Devices

34%

33%

33%

Question #4: When using the mobile device(s) with students what

are some of the factors that personally affect how you use them on

an ongoing basis?

Lack of Knowledge

Inadequate # of

Devices

Management

81

Question 5: What can be done to eliminate the barriers that hinder

you from integrating the mobile devices effectively? The several themes emerged from

the data collected on this question, but the two main themes were more training and more

devices.

Theme 1: Training. Participants 1, 3, 8, and 12 each stated that more training

could help eliminate the barriers that hinder them from integrating mobile devices

effectively.

P1: “More training on setting up a management system and implementing it.” P3: “Training, well more training. Trainers need to show teachers how to use it within their classes.” P8: “Getting more training on what the devices can do and finding out what's available.” P6: “Professional development would help.” P10: “More training on how to use them whole group.” P12: “Trainings to help build my knowledge.” Theme 2: More devices.

P3: “Having more devices (in the classroom for students). Maybe integrating the BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) program would help.” P2: “Having more devices. If every child had on it would help. Especially when doing a lesson. This will allow everyone to be on the same page.” P4: “Having the resource available. You can only check out 12 iPods at a time, having a class set would be more beneficial. When the whole campus has to share the devices, you don't consider using them because you know you won't have enough for all the students. I also use the iPad but there are only six iPads, and the limited use is also an issue. Since the teachers on my grade level are self-contained, and the lessons are scheduled for the same time, there is no option to borrow devices from other teachers to use with my students. Other teachers also ask to borrow our iPads, so then it also takes away from my class.”

P7: “There are not enough devices, and I would like a full small group of devices. In my classroom I have two iPads and one iPod touch, so I usually have to borrow

82

devices.” P10: “We need more devices.”

P11: “Having more devices would help, therefore the district will have to provide more (devices) if they expect teachers to use mobile devices. The student to device ratio doesn't work.” Theme 3: Integrate technology into curriculum.

P5: “Including the apps within the scope and sequence. Make resources, that includes using the mobile devices, available to teachers, so they don't have to create them.” P11: “Curriculum and technology are separate in the curriculum, but if they were integrated it would help. I feel curriculum has to be written around technology instead of the two being written together.” Theme 4: Management. Management was also listed as barrier by teachers.

Some teachers described the management issues they face as overwhelming and

intimidating. A few of the participants said they were overwhelmed by the number of

applications (apps) on the device, while others described management of time as a

barrier.

P4: “Managing the devices is also a barrier, because having to manage your device and other teacher devices is too much, so you don't bother with asking to use other teacher's devices.” P7: “Having something to control off task behavior and having the ability to group apps”. P10: “If you keep one in your classroom, it would be easier to manage. I need to manage the device better.” Theme 5: Work with veteran teachers. Participants described their inexperience

as a barrier, and felt that by working with experienced teachers, they would gain the

knowledge they need to support students and overcome many of the technological

barriers they face. Teachers felt by observing teachers who are successful with

83

integrating mobile devices into their classroom instruction, they will gain

higher self-efficacy.

P1: “Trial and error, and talking to other teachers who have implemented the mobile devices.” P8: “Talking it through with more seasoned teachers and finding out how they effectively manage the devices.” Theme 6: Increase knowledge. Teachers described having more knowledge

regarding the device, the apps on the device, and how to integrate the devices into the

classroom as being very important. Knowing there is a great deal of resources on the

mobile device intimidates some teachers, and to overcome this barrier, teachers stated

they need to learn more. This includes learning more about the device, how to introduce

the device to students, how to manage the device so that every student has an equal

opportunity to use the devices, just to name a few solutions.

P2: “There is a lot that I don’t know, and I feel there is a lot out there that I need to know, about using the device to help students. The kids often know more than I do. I need more training.”

Theme 7: Time.

P4: “Scheduling with other teachers to borrow their iPads, or other devices, then it becomes another barrier of time.” P 6: “There is not enough time to take the classes required, so having a half day of technology at the beginning of the year instead of some of the other professional development course would help.” P9: “More time.” Question 6: Is the amount and level of training you receive adequate for

maximizing the potential of mobile devices in your classroom?

P1: “I don’t attend technology trainings.”

P2: “The training is offered, but I don't feel like it maximizes my potential, because the time is not there because of district requirements for other trainings.

84

When you're required to take a required amount of classes, it's hard to take additional hours for technology alone.” P3: “No, but they are starting to offer more. Tech training should be throughout the year, instead of only during the summer. It also needs to be at the campus and the district level.” P4: “The technology trainings are okay. The one technology training I attended was okay, because I had to use my own device, but it at least it gave me an opportunity to use it and learn how to use it as an instructional component. Overall the trainings have been limited.” P5: “I go above and beyond to find the trainings I need, but I don't think it hurts to have more. I’m more comfortable using mobile devices because I have the same devices at home.” P6: “I need more time to figure out how to use the device.” P7: “Having the technology component integrated into the training would help. It doesn't happen because the tech and curriculum don't really communicate.” P8: “I don't think there is enough training, and within the training, the tech person does not know everyone's needs.” P9: “The technology classes that are offered should be slowed down, sometimes they feel rushed, and there is no follow-up.” P11: “The district should have teachers take technology trainings in addition to the other trainings we’re required to take.” P12: “I am introduced to the technology, but I want more in-depth training.”

Question 7: How (if any) can technology training be made more beneficial and

help eliminate barriers? Each participant shared several ways technology training can

be more beneficial and help to eliminate barriers. P1 and P4 suggested more training that

shows her how to manage the device in her classroom within a whole group environment.

P2, P3, and P7 state breaking the trainings down by grade level and subject area would

help eliminate barriers and be more beneficial to teachers. More training that included

follow up by trainers was also suggested by P8 and P12. Additional suggestions are as

follows:

85

P5: “Have the teacher use the devices and apps within the training, instead of just showing them how to use them.” P6: “Narrow the training down and provide quality versus quantity.” P7: “Bring the technology trainings to the campus level, so it will be geared towards our campus needs, versus district needs.” P10: “The trainings should show how it will look within an actual class.” P11: “Have curriculum integrate the technology in their training.”

Summary

Chapter 4 presented the discoveries that emerged from the data analysis of the

lived experiences of teachers using mobile devices in the K-5 classroom. The data was

derived from research questions that aligned with the main research question for the

study. The main questions sought to identify, through the lived experiences of teachers,

the perceived barriers that affect their ability to integrate technology into the classroom.

Interviews were conducting using open-ended questions and a classroom observation

followed. QSR NVivo 9 was used to assist with the data analysis by helping to organize

the data and search for themes and word frequency. Themes were discovered from the

data analysis, and those themes were time constraints, inadequate number of devices,

training (professional development), management issues, and lack of knowledge.

The participants responded to open ended interview questions and the themes

were discovered based on their responses. For question #1, teachers perceived several

barriers as impacting the implementation of the mobile devices. They top barriers were

time, management, and inadequate number of devices. For question #2 the participant

listed several ways in which their ability to use mobile devices in their instruction is

affected. This included factors such as, effectively integrating the mobile device into the

curriculum, and knowing which apps to include within each lesson. For question #3

86

teachers were able to name devices such as the iPad and iPod as devices they

use with their students.

In question #4, teachers described lack of knowledge regarding what is available

to use with students on the mobile devices and the inadequate number of devices as a few

of the factors that personally affect how they use the devices on an ongoing basis. For

question #5 teachers suggested more technology training, ongoing training, and follow-up

from technology specialist as some ways to eliminate the barriers that hinder them from

integrating mobile devices effectively. Teachers also stated that adding more devices

into their classroom, and providing more time to learn to use the device with their

curriculum would also help.

For question #6, some teachers felt the district did not offer enough technology

trainings, while others felt the technology trainings were available to them but they did

not have an opportunity to attend them. Some teachers stated they are required to attend

12 hours of professional development each year and this is filled quickly by the specific

curriculum related trainings they must attend. Attending technology trainings would be

done in addition to the required 12 hours, and teachers usually do not have the extra time

to attend the technology trainings. In question #7, 100% of the teachers wanted more

training. Not only do the teachers want more training, but they want them broken down

by grade level, instead of being one size fits all. Teachers also want the courses to be

provided at the campus level, and expect more follow up.

Chapter 5 includes a review of the purpose of the study, research methods, and

limitations associated with this research study. Discussion regarding how the study

aligns with the data collected from the open-ended interviews will also be included in

87

chapter 5. Conclusions and recommendations for educational leadership will

also be made, and this will finalize the research study.

88

CHAPTER 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the teacher perceived barriers

when using mobile devices in the K-5 classroom. Themes were discovered from

interview data on the lived experiences of K-5 elementary school teachers located in the

Northern Region of the Texas. This chapter will include the findings and conclusions

extracted from the themes that emerged during the interview analysis. The purposive

sample included 12 teachers from an elementary school in Texas. Two teachers from

each grade level, kindergarten through fifth grade, volunteered to participate in the study.

Teachers were given an opportunity to volunteer for the research study during a

staff meeting held on their campus. The study sought to interview two teachers from

kindergarten through fifth grade who are certified to teach in the general education

classroom. The proposed number of participants was willing to participate from each

grade level; therefore twelve face-to-face interviews were conducted at the elementary

campus. The interviews were opened-ended and captured the lived experiences of

teachers as they responded to the interview questions. Teachers appeared open and

willing to share their lived experiences with the researcher. The questions were

administered in the same order for each participant. Although many of the participants

answered several questions within one response, the researcher continued to ask each

question in order to ensure the participants’ response remained the same. By asking each

question in the same numerical order, the researcher did not assume the response

answered specific interview questions.

The data from the face-to-face interviews and observations provided an in-depth

explanation of the teacher perceived barriers that interfere with the integration of mobile

devices in the K-5 classroom. A purposive sample of teachers was used because the

89

participants each taught a general education class, is certified to teach in the

state of Texas, and shared common knowledge about the research study’s topic. A

thematic content analysis allowed the researcher to find commonalities among the

responses of the research participants. Chapter 5 includes the summarization of the

research problem, purpose of the research, research method, limitations of the study, the

conclusion, and recommendations.

Problem Statement

Concerns with teachers who fail to fully integrate handheld technology into their

classroom instruction guided the research study. Schools across the United States are

embracing the mobile device phenomenon and are striving to embrace 21st century

learning in the digital age (Wallings, 2012). While there is an understanding of the need

to increase digital citizenship there are perceived barriers that hinder teachers from fully

embracing the concept. From previous research discussed in Chapter 2, it was determined

some of the perceived barriers included: time management, lack of resources, and low

self-efficacy. To address the research problem seven interview questions were composed

for this study to gather data from the lived experiences of each teacher.

Response to Research Questions

R1: What perceived barriers cause teachers to avoid the use of mobile devices as

a part of their classroom instruction?

Through a detailed data analysis of the data collected it was discovered that

teachers perceive several barriers as reasons they avoid using mobile devices in the

classroom. The barriers included time constraints, number of mobile devices,

professional development, management issues, and lack of knowledge. Time constraint

was the first theme discovered and it did not have a single meaning. When teachers

90

mentioned time, there were several variations of time and it was described in

several ways. Having time to participate in professional development, time to learn how

to use the device itself, and time to fit the technology into the current curriculum are a

few examples. Teachers also expressed concern about the time constraints that hinder

them from integrating technology into the lessons required by the district.

The second theme that developed was the inadequate number of mobile devices

available for teachers to use within their classroom. Many of the teachers felt they should

not complain about the number of devices there school has access to, because the number

of devices they have access to are probably more than other campuses within the district.

This statement was based on their perception of the number of devices available to

teachers. Data was not presented to teachers regarding the number of devices available to

teachers across the district, state, or nation. The reality of having only a few devices per

classroom did not allow teachers to facilitate whole group lessons. Teachers felt having a

device for every student would allow them to monitor what students were doing as they

worked on the device. Some teachers also felt having more than one device would keep

the students engaged throughout the entire lesson. Many of the teachers felt they were

unsuccessful when trying to introduce a concept with only one device.

Professional development was the third theme to emerge. Professional

development and training were used interchangeably by teachers as they responded to the

interview questions. Professional development for teachers usually involves 12 hours of

mandated curriculum related courses and technology related professional development is

usually optional. Some teachers felt the professional development courses for technology

were okay, but lacked follow up. Other teachers noted that professional development for

technology usually takes a back seat, because the required trainings take so much of their

91

time. They are not willing to add additional professional development hours to

their plate. Many teachers emphasized the need to include technology into the

professional development that relates to curriculum.

The last theme to develop was the lack of knowledge. While all teachers agree

the integration of technology is important many of them found their own lack of

knowledge hinders their ability to effectively integrate mobile devices. Not knowing

how to use the mobile device itself made it more difficult to incorporate some of the

devices’ features into lessons. The teachers who are familiar with using mobile devices

did not express the same level of concern as teachers who are not as familiar with using

the mobile device. Teachers who stated they have their own mobile devices and

successfully use them on a regular basis expressed high self-efficacy.

R2: How do these barriers interfere with the integration of mobile devices into

teachers’ instruction?

Each barrier interfered with the integration of mobile devices into the teachers’

instruction in several ways. The time barrier caused many teachers to not consider using

the mobile devices at all. If teachers chose to use the mobile devices, then it would be

used as reward, versus being used instructionally. The district professional development

expectations caused many teachers to only do the required amount of training without

considering technology related courses. Lacking the knowledge that is needed to

integrate mobile devices into the classroom instruction caused teachers to use the device

as a reward in some cases. In others situations teachers chose not to use it at all, or the

use of the device was very limited. Teachers felt the inadequate number of devices

limited their instruction and caused more problems than solutions. Many teachers stated

92

they had to share a limited number of devices with other team members and

this did not allow them an opportunity to use the device on an ongoing basis with their

students.

Summary of Findings and Interpretation

Demographic data was collected prior to conducting the interview protocol.

Seven questions were used to obtain background information on each teacher. The

questions included, age range, gender, years of teaching, years of teaching current grade,

the subject(s) the teacher is currently teaching, and whether or not the teacher’s class is

departmentalized. The demographic questions were followed up with a seven interview

questions. The data results were analyzed and themes were discovered from the

participants’ responses.

Since the students were not a part of the study, therefore they were not observed,

and the observation lasted from between 15 and 20 minutes. Because the study is a

qualitative phenomenological research study, open-ended interview questions were used

to produce narrative responses from the participants. The narrative responses provided a

detailed explanation of the lived experiences of teachers in their classroom and how it

relates to the research topic. The themes that were discovered include: (a) time

constraints, (b) inadequate number of devices, (c) training/professional development, (d)

lack of personal knowledge, and (e) management issues. Many of the themes discovered

within this research study were similar to the themes discussed from the literature review

in Chapter 2.

Demographic Information

The interview protocol procedure was administered the same way for each

teacher. Each interviewee was asked seven demographic questions in numerical order to

93

provide background knowledge about the individual. The numerical order of

the questions did not have meaning, but was used to ensure each participant answered

each question. The demographic questions also provided additional insight into the

teachers’ age, gender, total number of years as a fulltime teacher, the current grade level

the participant is teaching and the total number of years, what grade(s) the teacher has

taught in the past, and if the subject is departmentalized, the subject(s) that participant

teaches in their current assignment.

The interviewer spent time explaining the interview process with each participant

prior to beginning the interview. The interviewer built a rapport with each participant in

order for the participant to feel comfortable and be willing to share their lived

experiences without reservations. The interviewer provided each teacher with an

opportunity to choose his or her interview location within the school. It was important

the participant did not feel uncomfortable throughout the interview.

Teachers’ age. Teachers were asked the range of their age with the lowest being

21 and the highest 61 and over. The total age of teachers ranged from 21-55, with none

of the teachers being 61 or over. The age range of teachers has been significant in

previous research because it has been found that more teachers are willing to use

technology (Gado and Ferguson, 2006). Research studies have found that older teachers

have a higher self-efficacy in terms of teaching general education courses, but the

efficacy decreases when technology is introduced into the environment. Younger

teachers have been found to be more familiar with current technology and know how to

use it on a personal level. Many of these same teachers are not as confident with the

technology when they have to integrate it into their lesson. The data from this study

indicated younger teachers also struggled with integrating mobile devices in their

94

classroom. Teachers who used technology in their personal life experienced

more favorable results because they were familiar with the technology and used it on a

daily basis for a variety of needs.

Teachers’ gender. One hundred percent of the teachers who participated in this

study were female. This sample group consisted of a high number of female teachers,

which is representative of the majority of elementary schools across the United States

(National Center for Education Information, 2011). Females make up the majority of

teachers at the elementary level and males are highly represented in administrative roles

such as principal, assistant principal, and superintendents (National Center for Education

Information, 2011).

Current literature regarding teacher willingness to use technology has shown there

is no significance difference between males and females. In this study, each participant

was willing to use technology, but they cited barriers such as inadequate amount of

devices and lack of time to increase their personal knowledge through professional

development, as reasons they do not integrate technology on an ongoing basis in their

classroom. The school demographics included a high ratio of female teachers. At the

time of the research study only four male employees were assigned to the campus.

Years of experience. The teachers had varying years of experience in the

classroom, but 100% of the teachers had taught at least one year. The lowest number of

years a teacher taught was two years, and the highest was 13. Based on research,

teachers with higher years of experience often have lower levels of self-efficacy when

integrating mobile devices in their classroom (Gado and Ferguson, 2006). Recent college

graduates often state the lack of technology related courses in their undergraduate courses

causes their knowledge to be limited in terms of how they should integrate technology

95

into their classroom. A recent study by Clausen (2007) stated, “Research

related to first-year teachers' technology use recognizes that development during their

first year in the classroom also affects how new teachers use technology” (pg. 246).

In the current study many of the teachers with the least amount of experience did

not feel comfortable using technology in the classroom. For example, P8 stated, “I don’t

use the iPad because I am less familiar with it and scared of it. With being a new teacher

it is difficult to find additional research and/or training. I really don’t have the

forethought to plan how to use technology in my lessons.” Only one teacher, P8, had

taught her current grade for only a year. P8 stated her lack of experience has affected her

ability to use technology effectively within her instruction.

Discoveries and Common Themes from Interviews

Each interview was conducted face-to-face. The interviews were scheduled using

an interview scheduler and face-to-face communication. Teachers were asked to provide

the most convenient time and location for them within the school building. Each teacher

chose to be interviewed in their classroom either during their planning period, or after

school. Meeting in the teachers’ classroom allowed them to feel relaxed and “at home”

in their preferred environment. Prior to beginning each interview, the interviewee

greeted the teacher and asked about their day. The interviewer thanked each participant

for agreeing to be a part of the study and taking time from their busy schedule. Each

participant was read the interview protocol (see Appendix D) and a copy of the informed

consent form (see Appendix B) was provided for them to review. The participants were

reminded that the study was voluntary and they could withdraw at any time.

Each participant spoke candidly about their lived experiences and the interviews

were recorded and notes were taking during the interview. The notes were taken in case

96

clarifying questions needed to be asked later. After completing a thorough data

analysis several themes were discovered. The themes included: (1) time constraints; (2)

inadequate number of devices; (3) management issues; (4) lack of personal knowledge;

and (5) professional development/training. The following findings are a summary of the

data analysis.

Theme 1: Time Constraints. Time constraints were one of the first themes to

emerge from the data analysis. 100% of the teachers stated there was not enough time

within the school day to integrate technology effectively for several reasons. P2 said,

“The district requirements do not allow for technology to be used in the classroom. The

lessons do not require the use of technology. So the technology would be something in

addition to what we as teachers are already instructed to do.” Other teachers added the

curriculum did not include the technology, so teachers often did not have enough time to

determine how the technology should be used with the lesson.

Other concerns regarding time included the teachers’ lack of time to learn how to

use the device itself. Some teachers stated they do not have the opportunity to take the

device home, so they cannot learn how to use it unless they can find time within their

school day. Some teachers have also stated their personal time does not allow them to

play with the device, or learn what works best for their students outside of their

classroom. They also expressed concerns about not knowing all the applications on the

device.

Theme 2: Inadequate Number of Devices. Inadequate number of devices was

the second theme that emerged as a barrier for teachers. All teachers, 100%, stated they

need more devices in their classroom. P6 said, “Having to share the iPods is a barrier

because someone else always has them. I like to have my own items, so I can implement

97

a routine. Since I cannot have my own, I’d rather not use them.” Previous

research has also found the lack of devices to be a barrier that interferes with teachers’

beliefs and attitudes toward using technology (Kopcha, 2010). P9 said she uses both

Macbooks and iPads, but has to rotate three iPads among five teachers. P9 adds, “Having

to share the devices cause conflicts with the students, so I use the iPad more for incentive

and the Macbook for centers.” P11 said, “The number of devices is a barrier. The

district will have to provide more if they expect teachers to use them.”

Theme 3: Lack of Personal Knowledge. The lack of personal knowledge

affects teachers’ self-efficacy. It can decrease a teacher with high self-efficacy to a lower

self-efficacy, because they feel inadequate to instruct with technology. P12 said, “I

didn’t have these items when I was in school, so it’s new to me.” The technology is new

with devices such as the iPad being invented within the last three to four years. It is

challenging to provide proven techniques and methods that have worked successfully

over an extended time period.

Theme 4: Management Issues. Teachers stated several issues were the cause of

improper management of the device, which caused barriers for them instructionally.

Management barriers consisted of not having the ability to manage the content on the

device. P7 expressed the need to personalize the device to meet the needs of her

classroom. The technology facilitator is responsible for setting up the device, but this

limits the teachers’ ability to set up the devices to meet the needs of their students.

Teachers’ also expressed concerns about creating ways to implement one device in a

classroom full of students who desire to use the device equally.

Theme 5: Professional Development/Training. Professional development was

perceived as a barrier because teachers felt they did not individualize the instruction.

98

Other teachers stated the training is very broad and does not address areas that

meet individual needs. Every participant felt improvements could be made to

professional development involving technology and training. Teachers also stated they

are usually required to attend curriculum related training instead of technology trainings;

therefore it would help if the technology was integrated into the curriculum training. P9

said, “Sometimes the trainings feel rushed and there is no follow up.” P9 also added,

“There feels like there is a separation when you take trainings, and are sent back to your

classroom to implement what you learned.” P7 said, “It doesn’t happen because the

technology department and curriculum department don’t communicate.”

Another barrier associated with professional development is that many of the

trainings are not offered by grade level, or subject area. The trainings also lack the hands

on experience teachers say they need. P9 said, “The trainings need to provide hands on

experience, so I can actually perform the activity I am expected to facilitate in class.”

Significance of the Results to Leadership

The influx of mobile devices in education has brought an awareness of the

advancement of technology in the PK-12 environment. School leaders are agents of

change and understanding what teachers perceive as barriers is important to help them

grow as educators. Creating opportunities based on the responses of teachers within this

study allows school leaders to address concerns teachers have shared based on their

perception and lived experiences. The personal responses provided insight into the areas

teachers feel directly affects their ability to support students’ technology needs. By using

the information provided by teachers, school leaders can create solutions that directly

relate to the areas the teachers perceive as barriers, instead of taking a broader approach.

99

Implications to Leadership

The research findings are significant to leadership because the results provide

detailed insight into the teachers lived experiences of the new phenomenon of using

mobile devices in the classroom. Based on the findings, teachers expressed several key

concerns such as time constraints, lack of personal knowledge, management issues, and

number of devices. This information may lead to solutions that may eliminate the

barriers for teachers, and students. These barriers need to be addressed in order for

teachers to overcome them and move forward with innovative technological teaching

practices for students. By providing these results to leadership new professional

development standards and technology training can be implemented within school

systems across the state and ultimately the nation.

Comparisons with Previous Research

Findings in this research study were similar to previous studies. For example,

barriers such as time and professional development were discovered through the coding

of interview responses. Plair (2008) research indicated the lack of time negatively

affected teacher’s instruction. Teachers in the current study also stated lack of time

interfered with their instruction and ultimately limited their ongoing use of mobile

technology in the classroom. When teachers were asked about the barriers that do not

allow them to fully implement mobile devices in their classroom instruction time was the

number one response.

In terms of professional development, Bransford and Schwartz (1999) research

supports the need of meaningful professional development. Teachers in this study stated

professional development courses did not incorporate the technology the school district

expects them to use in their classroom. Based on teacher responses, administrators and

100

professional development coordinators do not require teachers to participate in

technology courses once they have completed their mandatory 12 hours.

Previous research by Kara-Soteriou (2009), discussed the role school leadership

plays in technology integration. School leaders such as principal and assistant principals

did not participate in the current research study, therefore their knowledge an perspective

regarding the teacher perceived barriers of using mobile devices in the classroom was not

researched. Ertmer (1999) research associated barriers as first and second order.

Ertmer (1999) stated:

“Whereas some teachers are constrained by first-order barriers, including limited equipment, training, and support, others struggle to overcome second-order barriers including their own deeply held beliefs about teacher-student roles, curricular emphases, and assessment practices. Although some teachers will not face either type of barrier, the literature suggests that teachers are likely to face both types of barriers as they move toward becoming technology-integrating teachers.” Every teacher in the current faced either a first-order barrier such as inadequate

number of devices and professional development concerns. The second-order barriers

teachers experienced included curricular emphases that expected technology integration,

but lacked resources to help teachers implement the technology. Another second-order

barrier included teachers’ perception of their lack of knowledge in terms of integrating

mobile devices into their classroom instruction, and the lack of knowledge about the

mobile device itself.

Assumptions and Limitations

The research study began with the assumption that 12 teachers from one

elementary school would discuss their perceived barriers regarding integrating mobile

devices in the K-5 classroom. The assumed number of teachers was available to

participate in the study, and each grade level was represented as initially assumed. It was

101

also assumed the teachers would answer honestly and speak candidly about

their lived experiences in the classroom. It was also assumed the participants know what

qualifies technology as a mobile device.

The study was limited by only using K-5 teachers in the general education

classroom. The study was also limited because it did not include the perspective of the

campus administrators. Chien-hsing (2010) recommends future research address the

impact school administrators’ leadership has on the integration of technology on their

campus. Another limitation to the study was the teachers were all female. Although the

study was open to both male and female teachers, the teachers who volunteered for this

study were all female. The age of the participants varied, but it the study was also limited

in that teacher over 60 years of age did not participate in the study.

Conclusions

Understanding the barriers that contribute to the lack of use of mobile devices is

important to school administration and educational leaders. State funding has changed

and decisions regarding campus technology purchases are focused on what mobile

devices should be used by the students within the schools. The participants who

volunteered to participate in the study were open about their responses.

The use of technology in schools is increasing despite funding setbacks. The type

of technology varies, but the need is still there. Teachers will continue to be challenged

by the demands of education, and this includes integrating some form of technology.

Technology is becoming more prevalent in society, and the need to educate students with

current technology is important, because it will provide them with the skills they need to

compete in society. It is important to provide teachers with the skills they need to

produce positive results in the classroom. Many students use technology daily, and if the

102

classroom environment does not meet their daily need, there is a

disconnection in their learning.

Time constraints are ongoing concerns for teachers. District and campus

requirements are detailed at the beginning of the year, and sometimes changed

throughout the year. State mandated testing also provides an additional area of stress for

teachers. A school day often consists of teaching students, performing additional duties

such as monitoring the cafeteria or recess, meetings, and tutoring. Once the teachers’ day

is complete the only time left to attend trainings, or learn technological skills is their

personal time. Many teachers are neither willing nor able to sacrifice their personal time,

because it is usually the time they give their families. Providing opportunities for

teachers inside the school day is beneficial and allows them to remain connected with the

environment in which they are expected to use the technology. If teachers are expected

to learn certain skills outside the classroom, allowing them opportunities to check out

devices may increase their willingness to do so.

Management issues may be avoided by allowing teachers to personalize the

devices they use with their students. Many students require a number of accommodations

and modifications, and if the teachers are not allowed to set up devices to meet the needs

of their students, it becomes a complex task to manage the devices in a way in which they

will meet the needs of their students. Providing teachers with training that teaches them

how to use one device to accommodate a classroom full of students will also increase

their ability to manage the device. Allowing the teachers to see successful management

practices may provide them with examples and strategies they can incorporate into their

classroom.

103

The need to increase the personal knowledge of teachers when using

technology has been an ongoing concern in research studies. Teachers have shown lower

level of self-efficacy when they lack the knowledge to integrate technology in the

classroom. Teacher who do not struggle to integrate mobile devices, and/or have more

knowledge about the equipment have shown to have a higher level of self-efficacy and

use technology with students on an ongoing basis. Increasing the knowledge of teachers

will allow them to not only use the device as expected, but to also find new ways to use

the technology within their instruction.

The lack of professional development that is relevant and meaningful to teachers

is a common barrier in this type of research. Teachers continue to lack the narrow

approach to learning and are continually subjected to a broader standard of learning.

Teachers desire to learn about technology resources that are relevant to their grade level

and specific to their classroom needs. Providing follow-up and ongoing training is

essential to teachers as well. Teachers need to know if they are meeting the technological

needs of their students.

Teachers are expected to use technology in a classroom that includes an average

of 18 to 20 or more students. These same teachers are often expected to use one device.

Some teachers may be fortunate to use three to five devices, but this still limits how they

can integrate the device in their classroom. Like with textbooks, teacher often expect to

have enough devices for each student.

Recommendations

Based on the data and the themes discovered during extensive research, the

recommendations will provide insight and knowledge on was to reduce and/or eliminate

barriers teachers have when integrating technology into the K-5 classroom.

104

Theme 1: More Technology Related Professional Development.

The majority of teachers described the issues faced when trying to participate in

technology related professional development. Many of the issues derive from the district

required curriculum trainings. The district requires teachers to take a total of 12

professional development hours per school year, and courses usually range from three to

six hours. (Three-hour courses are considered a half day, and six hour courses are full

day trainings.) Once teachers have completed their twelve hours many do not seek

additional courses. Solutions to this issue may include incorporating the technology that

is expected to be used within the curriculum within the training course. This will allow

teachers to understand the district expectations, and use the technology within a safe

environment before being expected to use it with their students.

Theme 2: Reduce Time Constraints. Incorporating the technology into the

professional development can also reduce time constraints for teachers. Teachers were

not compelled to divide their time between the curriculum and technology professional

development if it can be completed in one training session. Another recommendation for

reducing time constraints includes designating campus professional development days for

specific technology training.

Theme 3: Provide Management Tools. Management tools may provide

resources teachers can use to ensure each student has an opportunity to use the mobile

devices in the classroom. Provide professional development courses that show teachers

how to properly manage the content of the device. This may reduce their anxiety with

the overwhelming amount of apps on the mobile devices. Providing teachers with an

opportunity to check out the device will allow them to learn the device and find ways to

105

manage the content to benefit their students. Schools should also consider

allowing teachers to manage the device and set it up to meet the needs of their students.

Theme 4: Increase the Number of Devices. In the last few years budget cuts

have reduced the amount of funding school districts are allotted to purchase technology.

Many efforts to reduce the need to purchase new technology have been piloted by school

programs. One of the programs is the: Bring Your Own Device program (BYOD). This

program allows students to bring their own device to school, and therefore reduces the

amount of technology schools must purchase. Another way to increase devices may

include working with parent teacher associations/organizations (PTA/PTO) to conduct

fundraisers that will bring in funds for technology purchases. Funds from grants can also

provide the funds schools need to purchase technology.

Theme 5: Professional Development Improvements. Providing teachers with

the hands on experience they need may help eliminate barriers they may face with

technology. Professional development courses need to be differentiated to meet the

needs of all learning styles. Some teachers require tactile learning, while others may

want a visual lesson. Either way, allowing teachers to use the device in a safe

environment, where they can make mistakes and ask questions, may increase the chance

of teachers using the devices with their students.

Recommendations to Future Research

The research focused on the perceived barriers K-5 teachers experience when

integrating mobile devices in their instruction. The current study provides data that may

add to current and future research on the same topic. The current research study may also

help provide an insight to past research studies. It is also recommended that a replicated

research study be conducted with grade 6th-12th teachers and include administrators to

106

determine if they experience similar barriers. This is important because the

elementary strategies must align with the secondary expectations.

Another recommendation for future research would include a quantitative

research study to determine the number of students and parents that feel the integration of

technology within schools has been successful. Having an additional perspective from

stakeholders may provide additional viewpoints from additional sources instead of a

single view by the school system. Teachers and administrators may think they are

integrating the technology effectively, while students and parents may have a different

perspective. The students and parents may agree that the technology is being integrated

effectively, but without data that supports this, school leaders can only guess.

Conducting this research and reviewing the research reports will provide information

regarding which direction the school needs to take regarding technology.

Future research studies could help by providing information regarding the

administrative perceived barriers as they attempt to support teachers with integrating

technology in the classroom and curriculum. It is important to know the level of efficacy

administrators have regarding their technology use. It is also recommended that a

qualitative study that involves administrators, especially principals, technology leaders,

and curriculum leaders, be conducted to produce data that will allow an overall view of

the perceived barriers, and possible produce solutions.

Students and teachers in special education classrooms may offer a different

perspective on barriers associated with integrating technology in the classroom.

Researchers should consider conducting this research on the perceived barriers of using

mobile devices in the special education. Researchers may consider taking a general

approach by studying special education classes in general. The researcher may also take

107

more of a directed approach to the research study by conducting research on

specific areas of special education.

Summary

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to identify the

teachers’ perceived barriers of K-5 teachers when integrating mobile devices into their

classroom. This research study was guided by the following research questions: (a) What

(perceived) barriers cause teachers to avoid the use of mobile devices as a part of their

classroom instruction? (b) How do these barriers interfere with the integration of mobile

devices into the teachers’ instruction? The lived experiences of 12 elementary school

teachers for grades K-5 were explored to determine the perceived barriers faced by each

teacher.

The current research study uncovered several areas of focus. Time constraints

hinder teachers in a number of ways, and must be decreased or eliminated completed to

provide an adequate opportunity for teachers to be successful when using technology.

The lack of personal knowledge was another barrier that affected teachers. The

technology is new, the curriculum does not integrate the technology, and there is not

enough professional development that integrates technology.

Chapter 1 introduced the research topic and explained the theoretical frameworks

such as the social cognitive theory, TPB, TPCK, and TAM and how they are associated

with the study. The background, purpose, problem statement, significance of the study,

and design were also included in chapter 1. The assumptions, limitations, and

delimitations concluded the chapter.

Chapter 2 provided a detailed literature review of the historical perspective, which

included an overview of the history of mobile technology in education. Chapter 2 also

108

included the significance of the study and current findings that address

barriers associated with mobile devices in education.

A qualitative method was used for this research study. Chapter 3 explained how

the study used the phenomenological method to address the teachers lived experiences

when using a phenomenon such as mobile devices in their classroom (Moustakas, 1994).

Several process were also discussed in Chapter 3, these processes included data

collection and data analysis and the steps that were used to ensure confidentiality would

be maintained throughout the study, and the procedures were ethical.

Chapter 4 discussed that results from the research conducted for this study. The

problem statement and research questions were reviewed, and the data collection process

was explained. A pilot study was conducted for this study, and the process was

explained. In addition to the pilot study process, information was provided that detailed

the participant interviews and observations.

Chapter 5 summarized the research study and provided a breakdown of the

themes that were uncovered from the data results through a response to research

questions. Summary findings were provided that broke down the demographic results,

observations, and themes from the interviews. The chapter ended by providing additional

information regarding the significance to leadership, assumptions, limitations and

recommendations for future research.

109

References

Abaci, S., Brush, Easterling, W., Gronseth, S., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., van Leusen, P., &

Rowan, T. (2010). Equipping the next generation of teachers: Technology

preparation and practice. Journal of Digital Learning in Education, 27(1), 30-36.

Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in pre-

service teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal

of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281-300.

AÇikalin, M. (2010). Exemplary social studies teachers’ use of computer-supported

instruction in the classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,

9(4), 66-82.

Alexiou-Ray, J. (2006). Handheld computing and the effects of the one-to-one ratio on

learning: Parental perceptions and student attitudes. (Doctoral dissertation).

Almekhlafi, A., & Almeqdadi, F. (2010). Teachers' perceptions of technology integration

in the United Arab Emirates school classrooms. Educational Technology &

Society, 13(1), 165-175.

Archambault, L., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Williams, M. (2010). Professional

Development 2.0: Transforming Teacher Education Pedagogy with 21st Century

Tools. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 4-11.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th

ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Group.

Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., & Burden, K. (November 01, 2009). Mobile Learning for

Teacher Professional Learning: Benefits, Obstacles and Issues. Alt-j: Research in

Learning Technology, 17, (3), 233-247.

110

Banister, S. (2010). Integrating the iPod Touch in K-12 Education: Visions

and Vices. Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 121-131.

Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-Scale Research

Study on Technology in K-12 School: Technology Integration as It Relates to the

National Technology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 35(4), 489.

Baytak, A., Tarman, B., & Ayas, C. (2011). Experiencing technology integration in

education: children's perceptions. International Electronic Journal of Elementary

Education, 3(2), 139-151.

Becker, H.J. (1994). How exemplary computing-using teachers differ from other teacher:

Implication for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of

Research on Computers in Education 26(3). 291-321.

Beckmann, M.. Handheld computers as a model of training for teachers. Ed.D.

dissertation, Walden University, United States -- Minnesota.

Beddoes, K. D., Jesiek, B. K., & Borrego, M. (2010). Identifying Opportunities for

Collaborations in International Engineering Education Research on Problem- and

Project-based Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning,

4(2), 7-34.

Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in

technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and

Distance Learning, 12(3), 98-118.

Beyerbach, B. A, & Walsh, C., & Vanatta, R. A. (2001). From teaching technology to

using technology to enhance student learning: Preservice teachers' changing

111

perceptions of technology infusion. Journal of Technology and

Teacher Education, 9, 105-127.

Bowman, L., Levine, L., Waite, B., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really

multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers

& Education, 54(4), 927-931.

Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on

technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and

practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 22-43.

Brockmeier, L. L., Pate, J. L., & Leech, D. (2010). Principals' Use of Computer

Technology. Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom, 2(3), 85-90.

Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom:

Students' experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of

Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599-621.

Brown, E. L. (2004). Overcoming the challenges of stand-alone multicultural courses:

The possibilities of technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 12(4), 535-559.

Brown-Joseph, T. (2010). A study of the barriers K-12 teachers encounter when

integrating technology into the curriculum. University of Phoenix). ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses , 175. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/853752653?accountid=35812. (853752653).

Brown, R. A., & Brown, J. W. (2010). What is Technology Education? A Review of the

“Official Curriculum”. Clearing House, 83(2), 49.

112

Bybee, R. W., & Starkweather, K. N. (2006). The twenty-first century

workforce: A contemporary challenge for technology education. Technology and

Engineering Teacher, 65(8), 27-27-32.

Chen, W., Tan, N., Looi, C., Zhang, B., & Seow, P. (2008). Handheld computers as

cognitive tools: Technology-enhanced environmental learning. Research &

Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(3), 231-252.

Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2009). A review of research methodologies used in studies

on mobile handheld devices in k-12 and higher education settings. Australasian

Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 153-183.

Chien-hsing Wang. (2010). Technology leadership among school principals: A

technology-coordinator's perspective. Asian Social Science, 6(1), 51-54.

Childs, A., Sorensen, P., & Twidle, J. (2011). Using the Internet in science teaching?

Issues and challenges for initial teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy &

Education, 20(2), 143-160. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2011.588413.

Cihak, D. F., & Bowlin, T. (2009). Using video modeling via handheld computers to

improve geometry skills for high school students with learning disabilities.

Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(4), 17-17-29.

Clausen, J. M. (2007). Beginning teachers' technology use: First-year teacher

development and the institutional context's affect on new teachers' instructional

technology use with students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,

39(3), 245-261. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/274710937?accountid=35812

Cook, K. (2008) Computers in the classroom. EBSCO Research Starters. EBSCO

Publishing.

113

Convery, A. (2009). The Pedagogy of the Impressed: How Teachers Become

Victims of Technological Vision. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,

15(1), 25-41. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Coutinho, C., & Mota, P. (2011). Web 2.0 Technologies in Music Education in Portugal:

Using Podcasts for Learning. Computers in the Schools, 28(1), 56-74.

doi:10.1080/07380569.2011.552043

Cozzens, S. (2010). Emerging Technologies: Quantitative Identification and

Measurement. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22(3), 361-376.

Dawson, K. (2006). Teacher inquiry: A vehicle to merge prospective teachers' experience

and reflection during curriculum-based, technology-enhanced field experiences.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 265-292.

Dettelis, P. (2010). New York State Technology Education: History, the Current State of

Affairs, and the Future. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 70(4), 34-38.

Domine, V. (2009). A social history of media, technology and schooling. Journal of

Media Literacy Education, 1(1), 42-52.

Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hansen, L. E. (2011). One-to-one laptop teacher education:

Does involvement affect candidate technology skills and dispositions? Journal of

Research on Technology in Education, 44(2), 121-139.

Douglas, G. & Lewis, A., Mavrou, K. (2007). The use of Transana as a video analysis

tool in researching computer-based collaborative learning in inclusive classrooms.

Cyprus International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(2), 163-

178. doi:10.1080/17437270701383305

Earle, R. (2002). The integration of instructional technology in to public education:

promises and challenges. Retrieved September, 10, 2011 from

114

http://www.asianvu.com/bookstoread/etp/earle.pdf. Elias, T. (February 01, 2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile

learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 12(2), 143-156.

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for

technology integration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4),

47-61. Springer. Retrieved from

http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/BF02299597

Ertmer,P., Glazewski, K., Newby,T., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., (2010). Teacher value

beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student

needs. Computers & Education, 55,1321-1335

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002

Fishburn, T. (2008) Mobile device reading interventions in the kindergarten

classroom. Ed.D. dissertation, Wilmington University (Delaware), United States -

- Delaware.

Fordham, N., & Vannata, R. A. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom

technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253.

Retrieved May 5, 2010.

Franklin, C. A. (2008). Factors Determining Elementary Teachers' Use of Computers.

Principal, 87(3), 54-55.

Franklin, T. (October 01, 2011). Mobile learning: At the tipping point. Turkish Online

Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 4, 261-275.

Freeman, L. S., & Lin, H. (2010). Teaching technology in Texas schools. European

Journal of Social Sciences, 17(1), 80-87.

115

Fritz, M. L. (2005). Students using handheld computers to learn

collaboratively in a first-grade classroom (Doctoral thesis).

Gantz, L.. Handheld computer algebra systems in the pre-algebra classroom. Ph.D.

dissertation, George Mason University, United States - Virginia.

Gibson, S. G., Harris, M. L., & Colaric, S. M. (2008). Technology Acceptance in an

Academic Context: Faculty Acceptance of Online Education. Journal of

Education For Business, 83(6), 355-359.

Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. & Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health Behavior and Health Education.

Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.

Goldstein, Herbert. & Yeshiva Univ., New York, NY. Dept. of Special Education. 1969

Social Learning Curriculum and Evaluation [microform] / Herbert Goldstein

Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, [Washington, D.C.]

http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED040902

Good, T. L., Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach. (4th

ed.).White Plains, NY:Longman.

Gronseth, S., Brush, T., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Strycker, J., Abaci, S., Easterling, W., &

Leusen, P. (2010). Equipping the next generation of teachers: Technology

preparation and practice. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,

27(1), 30-36.

Guzman, A., & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies for technology integration

in the classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (5), 453-469.

Ham, V. (2010). Participant-directed evaluation: Using teachers’ own inquiries to

evaluate professional development in technology integration. Journal of Digital

Learning in Teacher Education. 27 (1), 22-29.

116

Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (January 01, 2011). Technological pedagogical

content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers'

curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research

on Technology in Education, 43, (3), 211-229.

Hartsell T, Herron S, Houbin F, Rathod A. (2010). Improving teachers' self-confidence in

learning technology skills and math education through professional development.

International Journal of Information & Communication Technology Education. 6,

(2), 47-61.

Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating Technology into K-12 Teaching and Learning:

Current Knowledge Gaps and Recommendations for Future Research.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.

Hill, R. A. (2011). Mobile digital devices: Dipping your toes in technological waters.

Teacher Librarian, 39(1), 22-26. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/902627624?accountid=35812;

http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=14811782&volume

=39&issue=1&date=2011-10-

01&spage=22&title=Teacher+Librarian&atitle=Mobile+Digital+Devices%3A+Di

pping+Your+Toes+in+Technological+Waters&au=Hill%2C+Rebecca+A&isbn=

&jtitle=Teacher+Librarian&btitle=

Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in

action: A case study of a middle school digital documentary project. Journal of

Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 179-200. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/274694879?accountid=35812

117

Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the Influence of Perceived

Usability and Technology Self-Efficacy on Teachers' Technology Acceptance.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343.

IBM. (n.d.). IBM Archives. In History of IBM. Retrieved October 5, 2012, from

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/decade_1980.html

Iqbal, Z., & Mahmood, N. (2010). Unraveling the Changing Pattern of Prospective

Teachers' Self- Confidence: Transition from Theory of Teaching to

Practice. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 20(2), 15-35.

Jianjun, W., & Yixin, Z. (2010). Examining potentialities of handheld technology in

students' academic attainments. Educational Media International, 47(1), 57-67.

doi:10.1080/09523981003654977

Jones, C. G., Johnson, D. W., & Bentley, J. (2004). Role Preference: Are Handheld

Computers An Educational Or Personal Technology?. Journal of Information

Systems Education, 15(1), 41-53.

Jongpil, C., Jaeki, S., Jones, D. R., & Nam, K. (2010). Influencing Preservice Teachers'

Intention to Adopt Web 2.0 Services. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher

Education, 27(2), 53-64.

Judge, S., & O'Bannon, B. (2008). Faculty integration of technology in teacher

preparation: outcomes of a development model. Technology, Pedagogy &

Education, 17(1), 17-28. doi:10.1080/14759390701847435

Kadirire, J. (2007). Instant Messaging for Creating Interactive and Collaborative m-

Learning Environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 8, (2), 1-14.

118

Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer Technology

Integration and Student Learning: Barriers and Promise. Journal of Science

Education & Technology, 17(6), 560-565. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9123-5.

Keskın, N., & Metcalf, D. (2011). The current perspectives, theories, and practices of

mobile learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 202-

208.

Kinzie, M. & Milbrath, Y. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective

teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of technology

and teacher education, 8. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from http://www.questia.com/

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2009). Wikis, Digital Literacies, and Professional Growth.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(7), 631-634.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical knowledge.

In The AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), The Handbook

of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teaching and Teacher

Educators (pp. 3-29). New York: Routledge.

Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A Systems-Based Approach to Technology Integration Using

Mentoring and Communities of Practice. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 58(2), 175-190.

Laliberte, T. R. (2009). Mixed method study: Exploring the use of educational technology

tools in K-12 classrooms. University of Phoenix). ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses.

Lawlor, B., & Donnelly, R. (2010). Using podcasts to support communication skills

development: A case study for content format preferences among postgraduate

researchstudents. Computers & Education, 54 (4), 962-971.

119

Leedy, P. D. & Omrod, J.E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design.

(9th ed.).

UpperSaddle River NJ: Pearson.

Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is

needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25, (3), 87-97.

Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal

study. Computers and Education, 49, 284–296.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.013.

Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. [Online] Available url:

http://www.devmts.demon.co.uk/resmethy.htm.

Technology Acceptance Model and E-learning. Technology, 22, 1-10.

Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Daniel Strahl, J. J., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology

integration “work” when key barriers are removed? Educational Media

International, 45(3), 195-213. doi:10.1080/09523980802284317

McFarlane, T. A., Green, K. E., Hoffman, E. R., & Educational Resources Information

Center (U.S.). (1997). Teachers' attitudes toward technology: Psychometric

evaluation of the technology attitude survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of

Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational

Resources Information Center.

Metiri Group. (2009). National trends report: Enhancing education through technology

(EETT).

Migliorino, P. (2011). Digital technologies can unite but also divide: CALD communities

in the digital age. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 24, (3),

107-110.

120

Mills, S. C., & Tincher, R. C. (2003). Be the technology: A developmental

model for evaluating technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, 35(3), 382.

Miranda, H., & Russell, M. (2011). Predictors of teacher-directed student use of

technology in elementary classrooms: A multilevel SEM approach using data

from the USEIT study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43,(4),

301-323.

Moran, M., Hawkes, M., & El Gayar, O. (2010). Tablet personal computer integration in

higher education: Applying the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use

Technology Model to Understand supporting factors. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 42(1), 79-101.

Morgan, H. (2010). Using handheld wireless technologies in school: Advantageous or

disadvantageous? Childhood Education, 87(2), 139-139-142.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nour-Mohammad Yaghoubi, & Ebrahim bahmani. (2010). Factors Affecting the

Adoption of Online Banking-An Integration of Technology Acceptance Model and

Theory of Planned Behavior. Canadian Center of Science and Education.

Ostovar-Namaghi, S. (2011). Teaching as a Disciplined Act: A Grounded

Theory. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2(4), 837-843.

doi:10.4304/jltr.2.4.837-843.

Pannabecker, J. R. (December 07, 1995). For a History of Technology Education:

Contexts, Systems, and Narratives. Journal of Technology Education, 7, 1, 43-56.

121

Park, Y. (February 01, 2011). A Pedagogical Framework for Mobile Learning:

Categorizing Educational Applications of Mobile Technologies into Four

Types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12, 2,

78-102.

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

fluency. The Clearing House, 82(2), 70-74. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/196881882?accountid=35812

Power, T., & Thomas, R. (2007). The classroom in your pocket? Curriculum Journal,

18(3), 373-388. doi:10.1080/09585170701590031

Quinn, Clark N. (2011) The Mobile Academy: mLearning for Higher Education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 120 pages. ISBN 978-1-118-07265-3.

Ramirez Jr., A. (2011). Technology Planning, Purchasing and Training: How School

Leaders Can Help Support the Successful Implementation and Integration of

Technology in the Learning Environment. Journal Of Technology Integration In

The Classroom, 3(1), 67-73.

Rice, K., & Dawley, L. (2009). The Status of Professional Development for K-12 Online

Teachers: Insights and Implications. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 17(4), 523-545.

Rifkind, D. S. (2011). A case study exploration of secondary school teachers' technology

integration. University of Phoenix). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 265.

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/899245417?accountid=35812. (899245417).

Rogers, R. K., & Wallace, J. D. (2011, July). Predictors of technology integration in

education: A study of anxiety and innovativeness in teacher preparation. Journal

122

of Literacy and Technology, 12(2), 28-62.

Ross, J., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on

computer skills and computer cognitions of Canadian students in grades K-3. The

Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 141-156.

Round 6, Fiscal Year 2007. The State Educational Technology Directors Association

(SETDA).Washington, DC. Available online at www.setda.org.

Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology:

Creating student-centered classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schachter, R. (November 01, 2009). Mobile Devices in the Classroom. District

Administration, 45(10), 31.

Schrum, L., & Glassett, K. F. (January 01, 2006). Technology Integration in P-12

Schools: Challenges to Implementation and Impact of Scientifically-Based

Research. Journal of Thought, 41 (1), 41-58.

Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Effects of

Technology Immersion on Teachers' Growth in Technology Competency,

Ideology, and Practices. Journal Of Educational Computing Research, 42(1), 1-

33. doi:10.2190/EC.42.1.a

Skiba, D. J. (2011, May). On the horizon mobile devices: Are they a distraction or

another learning tool? Teaching with Technology/Emerging Technology, 32(3),

195-197.

Smith, L., & Evans, J. (2010). SPEAK UP: Students embrace digital resources for

learning. Knowledge Quest, 39(2), 20-27. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/816915968?accountid=35812

123

Smolin, L., & Lawless, K. A. (2011). Evaluation across Contexts: Evaluating

the Impact of Technology Integration Professional Development Partnerships.

Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(3), 92-98.

Suki, N. M., & Suki, N. M. (2011). Using Mobile Device for Learning: From Students'

Perspective. 44-53.)

Swackhamer, L. E., Koellner, K., Basile, C., & Kimbrough, D. (June 06, 2009).

Increasing the Self-Efficacy of Inservice Teachers through Content

Knowledge. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36, 2, 63-78.

U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology:

Making a connection. OTA-HER-616). Washington, DC; U.S. Government

Printing Office.

U. S. Department Education . (2002, February). Enhancing Education Through

Technology (ED-TECH) State Program. In No Child Left Behind Local

Applications, Flexibility, Transferability. Retrieved October 7, 2012, from

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/reports.html

U. S. Department Education . (2005, December). OIG 25 Years. In OIG: Office of

Inspector General. Retrieved October 5, 2012, from

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/reports.html

Valdez, G. (2005). Critical issue: A catalyst for teaching and learning in the classroom.

Retrieved May 29, 2010, from

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te600.htm

Van Dijk, R., & Van Dick, R. (2009). Navigating organizational change: Change leaders,

employee resistance and work-based identities. Journal of Change Management,

9(2), 143-163.

124

Volk, K. S.: 1993, ‘Enrollment Trends in Industrial Arts/Technology

Education Teacher Education from 1970–1990. Journal of Technology Education

4(2), 46–59.

Walling, D. (2012). The tech-savvy triangle. Techtrends: Linking research & practice to

improve learning, 56(4), 42-46. doi:10.1007/s11528-012-0586-0

Wang, H., & Wang, Y. (2008). Developing and validating an instrument for measuring

mobile computing self-efficacy. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11(4), 405-413.

Watson, G. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher

self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 151-151-165.

Wepner, S. B., Bowes, K. A., & Serotkin, R. (2005). Lessons learned from implementing

technology in an undergraduate elementary education program. Journal of

Computing in Teacher Education, 21(4), 111-119.

Wing Sum, C., & Khe Foon, H. (2009). A review of research methodologies used in

studies on mobile handheld devices in K-12 and higher education settings.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 153-183.

Zhao, Y. (2007). Social Studies Teachers' Perspectives of Technology

Integration. Journal Of Technology & Teacher Education, 15(3), 311-333.

125

Appendix A: Letter of Collaboration

126

127

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form

128

129

Appendix C: Information Letter

130

131

Appendix D: Interview Protocol

132

133

Appendix E: Interview Scheduler

134

135

Appendix F: Interview Questions

136

Interview Questions

1. When using mobile devices in the classroom, do you feel there are certain

barriers that do not allow you to fully implement the device into your

classroom instruction?

2. How do the barriers you discussed in question number one affect your ability

to use mobile devices within your instruction?

3. Can you name (or describe) some of the mobile devices you use with your

students and how the devices are integrated into your curriculum?

4. When using the mobile device (s) with students what are some of the factors

that personally affect how you use them on an ongoing basis?

5. What can be done to eliminate the barriers that hinder you from integrating

the mobile devices effectively?

6. Is the amount and level of training you receive adequate for maximizing the

potential of mobile devices in your classroom?

7. How (if any) can technology training be made more beneficial and help

eliminate barriers?

137

Appendix G: Observation Checklist

138

139

Appendix H: Confidentiality Statement

140

141

Appendix I: Non-Disclosure Agreement

142

143

144

Appendix J: Permission to Use Premises

145