Technology offers teachers the ability to transform the quality of instruction\u2013to achieve a more student-centered learning environment, have more differentiated instruction, and develop problem- or project-based learning, and demand higher order thinking skills (Penuel, 2006).\u00a0 Additionally, mobile 1:1 technology in the classroom offers many benefits to student learning.\u00a0 According to Lipponen (2002), technology can enhance peer interaction and group work, facilitate knowledge sharing, and distribute knowledge and expertise among the learning community.\u00a0By having technology used on a daily basis in the classroom, teachers are improving their practice as well as their students\u2019 learning and knowledge advancement.<\/p>\n
Researchers have demonstrated that technology integration is essential to meet this goal (e.g., Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills, 2012); however, existing technology infrastructures are often insufficient to develop the desired outcomes of these implementations (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, Gielniak, & Peterson, 2012). Many current classroom teachers have yet to incorporate technology into their teaching practices. Teachers often do not understand or have the time to spend learning about the functionality of the devices.<\/p>\n
According to Ifenthaler and Schweinbenz (2013), a majority of teachers are open to integrating tablets and feel they would enhance their practice, but others are not confident about using a new device in their everyday instruction. In addition, the ways teachers integrate devices into their practice is often dictated by school culture (Fleisher, 2012; Greaves et al., 2012). Others have shown that internal barriers, attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy with technology still impact levels of technology integration (e.g. Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013). With the United States government distributing Race to the Top <\/em>funds for 1:1 mobile initiatives, developing a protocol for successful implementation of technology would benefit schools, teachers, and students.<\/p>\n Using a technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), this research project examined the classroom practice of two middle grades mathematics and science teachers integrating a 1:1 initiative.\u00a0 The following questions guided our research:<\/p>\n Background Literature<\/p>\n Currently, little research has examined teacher appropriation of tablets into pedagogical practices (e.g., Fleisher, 2012; Greaves et al., 2012). Many teachers are resistant or not sure of how to integrate technology into their everyday teaching (Greaves et al., 2012).<\/p>\n Teachers are an integral part of integrating technology into K-12 classrooms.\u00a0 When technology is used regularly in the classroom, teachers\u2019 practices, as well as students\u2019 learning, improve (Kim et al., 2013). Classroom technology is integrated into content and pedagogical practices at the teacher\u2019s discretion; not all teachers will integrate technology into their practice, and those who do use technology adopt the technology in varying degrees of integration. Typically, teachers who have more student-centered pedagogical beliefs will integrate technology as a part of their classroom, whereas teachers who have more teacher-centered beliefs are more likely to use technology as an enrichment activity (Kim et al., 2013).<\/p>\n Barriers, both internal and external, exist for teachers integrating technology. An external barrier can be described as institutional resources, such as having access to available technology, time with technology, technical support, and the technical infrastructure to adequately support technology integration (Hew & Brush, 2007).\u00a0 Internal barriers include attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy with technology, which all impact teacher technology integration (Kim et al., 2013).\u00a0 Specifically, one barrier that prohibits teachers from integrating technology into their practice is teachers\u2019 own beliefs and comfort levels with technology.<\/p>\n In an early study by Ertmer (1999), barriers were categorized as first and second order barriers.\u00a0 Teachers cited first order or external barriers, such as a lack of computers, computer software, and limited access to the Internet as reasons why they did not use technology in the classroom.\u00a0 Second order, or internal, barriers were not as frequently cited as the main barrier for technology integration.<\/p>\n When Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, and Sendurur (2012) revisited the original study 10 years later, this trend had reversed. They found that a majority of teachers listed internal barriers, such as teacher attitudes and beliefs, as the main reason for lack of technology integration. When teachers were \u201casked to name the biggest barrier, overall, to technology integration in their schools…[a majority] described other teachers\u2019 internal barriers\u201d (p. 433).\u00a0 Other internal barriers identified in the prevention of technology integration were teachers\u2019 confidence with technology, beliefs about how students learn with technology, and teachers\u2019 perceived value of technology in the classroom.\u00a0 In a 1:1 initiative school many of these first order, or external barriers, are no longer a predominant issue; however, teachers\u2019 second order, or internal, barriers still inhibit technology integration.<\/p>\n Professional development (PD) support in using technology could be an important factor for successful implementation by teachers in their classrooms. The different types of technology available for classroom use pose a variety of problems for teachers, yet, at the same time offer many unique teaching opportunities. Kim et al. (2013) \u00a0demonstrated that when teachers had access to technologies, workshops, and technical and pedagogical assistance, the levels of technology integration were not the same.\u00a0 Instead, teachers\u2019 pedagogical beliefs played a larger role.\u00a0 The teachers who had more student-centered pedagogical beliefs were better at integrating technology as a part of their classroom, whereas those who had teacher-directed pedagogical beliefs were more likely to use technology as enrichment to the lesson (Kim et al., 2013).<\/p>\n Additionally, when teachers lack the knowledge of how to use technology, their attempts to integrate it successfully are often limited (Koehler et al., 2014).\u00a0 This study built on previous work by Vannatta and Fordham (2004) who found three factors that best predicted how a teacher integrated technology: time commitment, willingness to change, and amount of technology training.<\/p>\n When examining technology integration in science specifically, Guzey and Roehrig (2009) found similar results to Kim et al. (2013).\u00a0 Guzey and Roehrig observed four beginning secondary science teachers\u2019 technology integration over the course of one school year after the teachers had attended a summer PD focused on technology integration in secondary science. They found that two of the teachers who had prior experience with technology described themselves as \u201ctechnology enthusiasts\u201d and were more comfortable with technology overall and looked for more opportunities to improve their technology integration into their science instruction.\u00a0 These two teachers also exhibited a more student-centered pedagogical style than did the two teachers who struggled to integrate technology into their classroom instruction.<\/p>\n Two areas of research that have not been fully is examined are teacher self-efficacy\u2014teachers\u2019 beliefs about their classroom practice (Paraskeva, Bouta, & Papagianni, 2006)\u2014and teacher computer self-efficacy\u2014teachers\u2019 beliefs about their ability to use technology in the classroom (Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross, & Specht, 2008). Previous research primarily examined teacher self-efficacy and computer self-efficacy with general technology in the classroom.\u00a0 This study will begin to examine a science and mathematics teacher\u2019s self-efficacy in a 1:1 mobile school and the influence of professional development situated in the classroom on that self-efficacy.\u00a0 Qualitatively, this research will examine how a teacher\u2019s perceived classroom technology education differs, if at all, from the observed integration of technology.<\/p>\n Teacher technology self-efficacy is a difficult topic to measure using traditional experimental designs.\u00a0 Most of the quantitative research for studying teacher self-efficacy consistently has used descriptive research to help define the phenomenon that is happening.\u00a0 The studies use a sample at one point in time to determine teacher self-efficacy with technology in the classroom and use a self-report survey (Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008; Holden & Rada, 2011; Hsu, 2010; Kumar, Rose, & D\u2019Silva, 2008; Mueller et al., 2008; Paraskeva et al., 2006; Teo, 2014; Vannatta & Fordham, 2004; Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006).<\/p>\n Using a single-time questionnaire to gather data about self-efficacy has both positive contributions and limitations.\u00a0 Results from analyzing questionnaire data are easily generalizable to other populations because of the potentially large number of participants in the studies. Using a questionnaire is also a way to determine a general consensus of a large group of individuals.\u00a0 A limitation of the single point sample survey method is that the questionnaires are comprised of self-report data.\u00a0 The data collected are representative of the participants\u2019 views of their technology use in the classroom at that particular point in time.\u00a0 Each participant may have a different understanding of technology integration and, thus, respond to the questionnaire differently because of the differing viewpoints.\u00a0 This circumstance could affect the validity of the study through statistical regression, by creating extreme scores on the instrument and through personal variables generated by the individuals in the study.\u00a0\u00a0 The quality of the self-report questionnaire also impacts the validity of these studies.<\/p>\n In a further examination of the literature, a few studies employed single-group experimental designs.\u00a0 Abbitt (2011) used a single group, pre-posttest design to evaluate the relationship between teacher self-efficacy beliefs toward technology integration and the teachers\u2019 perceived knowledge in the technological pedagogical content knowledge (also referred to as technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, or TPACK) domains.\u00a0 In another study, Kopcha (2012) employed the same design to determine the effects of situated professional development on teachers\u2019 technology integration in the classroom.\u00a0 Both studies had the participants complete a pre- and postquestionnaire.<\/p>\n Abbitt\u2019s (2011) participants took a 16-week course on integrating technology in the classroom.\u00a0 This study was beneficial because it examined the effect of the 16-week long technology course on the participants\u2019 knowledge and self-efficacy with technology.\u00a0 One impediment to the study\u2019s usefulness was that the study gathered information only about the participants\u2019 perceptions of knowledge of TPACK domains and self-efficacy beliefs.\u00a0 No evidence of demonstrated knowledge of ability with technology was found.<\/p>\n Kopcha\u2019s (2012) treatment was the implementation of situated PD provided by the researcher.\u00a0 Situated PD is when teachers are active learners, constructing their own knowledge, and the PD takes place in classroom practice (Swan et al., 2002).\u00a0 The study used qualitative methods as well as quantitative methods to collect data.\u00a0 The researcher conducted classroom observations of teachers using technology and one-on-one interviews to support the data collected via the questionnaires.<\/p>\n Research focusing on science teachers\u2019 self-efficacy with technology is limited in scope.\u00a0 Graham et al. (2009) studied teacher TPACK confidence prior to and after a professional development that focused on science subject-specific pedagogy and biology\/earth science content knowledge.\u00a0 Graham et al. (2009) used a pre-and postquestionnaire related to the four TPACK constructs that involve technology to examine science teachers\u2019 confidence with TPACK.\u00a0 The study found that the highest confidence was in participants\u2019 technology knowledge, which supports the authors\u2019 notion that technology knowledge is foundational to developing confidence in the other three forms of technology knowledge (i.e., technological content knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge, and technological pedagogical content knowledge).\u00a0 The participants\u2019 lowest confidence was technology content knowledge, which could be because technology content knowledge is most closely linked with doing science as opposed to teaching science.\u00a0 Educators were more confident in their ability to use technology to teach science (e.g., word processing, PowerPoint presentations, and Internet research) than they were in their ability to use technologies that are designed to do science (e.g., digital probes and digital microscopes).<\/p>\n Teacher self-efficacy has been studied through qualitative research methods, mainly through case studies, cross-examining the case studies, and meta-ethnography.\u00a0 Researchers collect their data for case studies in a few ways.\u00a0 One method is through interviews and classroom observations over an extended period of time (Ertmer et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2013) and by using a specific observation protocol (Looi, Sun, Seow, Chia, 2014).<\/p>\n Some studies use the case study method when they are examining teacher beliefs and technology integration, teacher perception of technology integration, and teachers\u2019 journeys when using new technology in the classroom (Ertmer et al., 2012; Looi et al., 2014).\u00a0 Ertmer et al. (2012) developed cases by examining teachers\u2019 class websites using in-depth document analysis and conducting one-on-one interviews with the teachers.<\/p>\n Looi et al. (2014) developed cases on four teachers implementing a 5E-Technology-oriented science curriculum. \u00a0The 5E-Technology model is a five-step model in developing lesson plans.\u00a0 The 5Es are engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate.\u00a0 The cases analyzed how the four teachers used the same curriculum and PD in different ways.\u00a0 Looi and colleagues used classroom observations as their case data.\u00a0 With each observation field notes, observation sheets, and video and audio data were collected.<\/p>\n Cross-comparing case studies allows for researchers to gather data about individuals and find common and contrasting themes from the data.\u00a0 Hughes (2005) used cross-comparison case studies when she examined four English language arts teachers and how they used technology to support their practice.\u00a0 The four teachers had varying years of experience and were interviewed on three different occasions.\u00a0\u00a0 Three technology-centered lessons were also observed to create each individual case.\u00a0 Each case was presented and then crossed with the other cases to display common themes and trends.<\/p>\n This method is beneficial because it dives deeper into teachers\u2019 perceptions and thinking.\u00a0 By using both interviews and observational data the researcher is able to compare teachers\u2019 perception of their practice to teachers\u2019 actual classroom practice with technology. \u00a0The limitation of case studies is that the teachers are not given a voice.\u00a0 There are no direct quotes from the teachers who participated in the study, which lowers the authenticity of the study.\u00a0 Hughes (2005) did, however, provide thorough descriptions of the English language arts teachers\u2019 technology use and how they compared to one another.<\/p>\n Another example is found in the study by Tondeur et el. (2012). The researchers use a meta-ethnography to synthesize qualitative data from multiple studies focusing on technology training for preservice teachers to make new interpretations of the data.\u00a0 Existing qualitative studies were examined to find common themes among the literature.\u00a0 These themes were then synthesized to create a model for teacher education programs to prepare preservice teachers to use technology in their future classrooms.\u00a0 The study\u2019s aim was to inform the technology education programs already in existence and influence their methods of preservice teachers\u2019 future technology integration.<\/p>\n The study described in this paper attempted to utilize the current research to advance the knowledge about teacher technology self-efficacy.\u00a0 It adds to the literature about ways teachers use mobile 1:1 technology in the classroom and the ways specific PD increases teacher technology self-efficacy.<\/p>\n Theoretical and Methodological Frameworks<\/p>\n Design-Based Research<\/p>\n This study is part of a larger design-based research project (Brown, 1992) that is examining the use of iPads within specific content contexts. Design-based research emerged from the dialectic between theory and design in research, with theory suggesting an improved design and design suggesting new dimensions to theory. While theory and design can and do exist independent of one another, an inherent connection still exists between them. Design-based research is an iterative process that is based upon outcomes that can impact the modification of instructional practice through monitoring and self-regulation (Schoenfeld, 2006).<\/p>\n According to Brown (1992), the goals of design experiments are important educational goals. Students and teachers in these classrooms function as researchers, teachers, and monitors of their own progress. With the help of technology, they are able to facilitate learning, collaboration, and reflection. As a result, these experiments are able to produce data that enables those who are involved to draw warranted conclusions about student learning and what contributes to it.<\/p>\n Scardamalia and Bereiter (1991, 1994) demonstrated in numerous studies that when instruction included the students\u2019 collective responsibility for knowledge generation and content understanding, students felt empowered to take ownership in the discovery and refinement of information. This knowledge building includes ways in which the classroom environment is designed to focus on<\/p>\n real ideas, authentic problems; improvable ideas; idea diversity; working toward more inclusive principles and higher-level formulations of problems; epistemic agency; community knowledge and collective responsibility; democratizing knowledge; symmetric knowledge advancement; pervasive knowledge building; constructive uses of authoritative sources; knowledge building discourse, and embedded and transformative assessment. (Scardamilia, 2002, p. 75)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n TPACK<\/p>\n TPACK is the framework utilized in this study that describes the knowledge required to integrate technology into the classroom (see Figure 1; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).\u00a0 This framework describes teacher knowledge of all three domains\u2014content, pedagogy, and technology\u2014and how it can be drawn upon in a synergistic manner. The framework builds upon the earlier work of Schulman\u2019s (1986) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) that describes how teachers must draw upon their knowledge of course content and pedagogical approaches.<\/p>\n Figure 1. <\/strong>TPACK, or technological pedagogical content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).<\/em><\/p>\n Previously, PD around technology has focused on introducing the affordances of the technology with the assumption that teachers could connect these to their teaching practice (Kopcha, 2012; Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). \u00a0TPACK provides the framework to organize teaching with technology, allowing teachers to bring together content, pedagogy and technology. Educators\u2019 TPACK, or technology integration knowledge, is operationalized when they identify an effective combination of curriculum content, a particular pedagogical approach, and a use of a technology tool or resource to support the learning experience.<\/p>\n Focusing on scientific content, Jimoyiannis (2010) developed \u00a0the technological pedagogical science knowledge (TPASK) framework based on the TPACK framework.\u00a0 The TPASK framework focuses not only onthe technological aspects but includes integration of pedagogical and instructional issues of educators.\u00a0\u00a0 Jimoyiannis noted that having TPASK means more than just being a content specialist or a technology specialist; it means that science educators have knowledge of all components and how to utilize them in their classrooms.\u00a0 Guzey and Roehrig (2009) and McCrory (2008) supported this notion in their research and emphasized the importance of in-depth knowledge of scientific concepts, as well as the dynamic development of pedagogy and technology knowledge.<\/p>\n Research Design and Methodology<\/p>\n Study Context: School and Students<\/p>\n Caldwell Middle School is an urban middle school in the southeastern portion of the United States. (Pseudonyms are used for schools, teachers, and students.) It is a Title I school with a diverse population (N<\/em> = 647).\u00a0 The demographic profile of the school at the time of this study consisted of the following: White, 8%; African American\/Black, 66%; Asian, 3%; Hispanic, 21%; Native American, 2%; and Multiracial, 2%.\u00a0 Eighty-percent of the students receive free or reduced lunch, with 81% being classified as economically disadvantaged, <\/strong>11% with limited English proficiency, and 19% with disabilities. The school was purposively selected based on its implementation of a 1:1 iPad initiative funded through the federal Race to the Top to address technology integration in the classroom.<\/p>\n Study Context: Teachers and Classrooms<\/p>\n A larger study focused on a sixth-grade team (students, n<\/em> = 100; teachers, n<\/em> = 4) of teachers across the content areas. Teachers were purposively selected with the assistance of the principal of the building.\u00a0 After the University Institutional Review Board and the District Research Office approved the study design and the proposal, teachers were invited to participate. All members of the sixth-grade team agreed to participate and returned the consent forms.<\/p>\n For this paper, two members of this team are the focus, Jake and Isabell, due to their content areas of science and math.\u00a0 Jake and Isabell were both classified as highly qualified teachers with masters degrees.\u00a0 Both were White, had 5+ years of teaching experience, and were traditional in their instructional approaches, relying primarily on didactic instruction such as lectures and worksheets.\u00a0 Some demonstrations were presented, but students were not active participants in these activities.\u00a0 Both teachers appeared to have well equipped classrooms with lab equipment for inquiry.<\/p>\n The participants were reflective of the larger teacher population at Caldwell and of the district, predominantly White, in contrast to the student population, which was predominately African American\/Black. When breaking down the teacher demographics of the school, the following information was determined. Twenty-two percent of the teachers were male and 77% were female.\u00a0 A large portion of the faculty was White (63%). The remaining 37% of the faculty was broken down as follows: African America\/Black, 34%; Hispanic, 2%; Native American, 0%; and Other, 0%. Ninety-four percent of the teachers at Caldwell met the federal guidelines for highly qualified, with 39%, including Jake and Isabell, having advanced degrees.<\/p>\n Data Sources<\/p>\n Multiple sources of data collection are part of this study, including semistructured interviews with teachers, circle of influence diagrams (see Appendix<\/a>), field notes and observations, teacher lesson plans, and video data.\u00a0 These multiple sources allowed for the triangulation of the data. The data collected documents teachers\u2019 perceptions and uses of technology, mainly the iPad, in their pedagogy.\u00a0 We examined interview transcripts, field notes, and lesson plans and evaluated the data using a constant comparative method (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Data collection and analysis was an iterative and inductive process.\u00a0 Data was organized into core categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), which provided a framework for observing and analyzing teachers self-efficacy and use of technology in their classroom.<\/p>\n Teacher reasoning was captured through the interviews.\u00a0 As part of these interviews, teachers participated in the construction of a circle of influence diagram. In this diagram, the teachers talked through the influence of different types of technologies on their instructional practice. Using Inspiration software, they moved these technologies toward or away from their circle of instructional practice, indicating the type of influence a specific technology had on their practice. Through a think-aloud protocol, additional insight was given to the reasons for the placement of the technology. \u00a0This data supported and refuted the emerging hypothesis about teachers\u2019 self-efficacy and use of technology in their classroom practice.<\/p>\n Data Analysis<\/p>\n Interview data were transcribed and analyzed using HyperTranscribe and HyperResearch. Members of the research team, including faculty researchers and doctoral students, independently reviewed data from the larger study (N <\/em>= 8 Grade 6 teachers) and coded the responses using a grounded theory, constant comparative method (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). We developed an initial set of codes that emerged from this open coding.<\/p>\n In this second iteration, we looked for codes that were present in the interviews but absent from the draft code sheet.\u00a0 Coding results were compared and formal descriptions were developed for each code that had a high level of agreement (see Table 1). Discrepancies were discussed and the reasons that they occurred were identified.\u00a0 Once definitions were decided, a third set of interviews was coded and an interrater reliability of r <\/em>= 0.95, was established. Cohen\u2019s kappa was calculated to show that \u03ba = 0.84, which indicates that the frequency with which raters agreed is stronger than by chance alone. Once final coding schemes were established, the remaining interviews and field notes were analyzed. Data were triangulated across interviews, field notes, lesson plans, and classroom observations in order to increase trustworthiness and validate the findings of this study (as recommended by Lincoln & Guba, 1985).<\/p>\n Table 1\n
![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i3ScienceFig1.png\")
<\/p>\n
\nCodes and Definitions<\/strong><\/p>\n
![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i3ScienceFig2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i3ScienceFig3.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i3ScienceFig4.jpg\")
<\/a> Figure 4. <\/strong>Jake\u2019s QR code example \u2013 Jake\u2019s perceptions. (Click on the image to view a larger version.)<\/em><\/p>\n![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i3ScienceFig5.jpg\")
<\/a> Figure 5. <\/strong>Jake\u2019s QR code example \u2013 researchers\u2019 observations. (Click on the image to view a larger version.)<\/em><\/p>\n![\"FIGURE](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i3ScienceFig6.jpg\")
Figure 6. <\/strong>Isabell\u2019s inner circle of technology influence.<\/em><\/p>\n![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i3ScienceFig7.jpg\")
Figure 7.<\/strong> Researchers\u2019 classroom observation of Jake\u2019s practice and technology integration.<\/em><\/p>\n