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