Capstone Impact of Technology Integration Training

Impact of Technology Integration Training
Stephanie Hoppenworth
A Capstone Presented to the Teachers College Faculty
of Western Governors University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Learning and Technology
December 7, 2018
IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION TRAINING 2
Abstract
Increased use of technology in the classroom has led to the need for more professional
development related to integrating technology to help students learn. The aim of this study was
to measure the impact a technology integration training had on teachers’ self-efficacy regarding
technology in the classroom. Participants were teachers in grades 3-5 at an intermediate school in
the first year of 1:1 technology integration. The technology training was provided entirely
through online platforms where teachers could learn and access materials at their own pace. A
survey was given to participants before the training to measure a self-efficacy score related to
technology for each participant. In the survey, teachers were asked to rate their comfort level
using different technology applications. The same survey was again given to participants
following the training to compare scores and measure the impact of the training. Results of the
surveys showed that the training led to a slight increase in teachers’ self-efficacy regarding
technology in the classroom.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 - Topic and Problem 6
Topic 7
Problem Statement 7
Problem Background and Causes 8
Research Question 8
Topic and Problem Conclusion 8
Chapter 2 - Review of the Literature 8
Overview of the Literature 9
Summary 12
Chapter 3 - Research Methodology 13
Research Design 13
Research Question 13
Participants 13
Data Collection Instruments and Methods 14
Data Security and Confidentiality 14
Summary 15
Chapter 4 - Results 16
Answers to the Research Questions 18
Chapter 5 - Discussion and Conclusion 20
Overview 20
Problem Solutions 20
Strengths and Weaknesses 20
Influential Factors 21
Further Investigation 21
References 23
Appendix A 26
Appendix B 54
Appendix C 56
Chapter 1 - Topic and Problem
Topic
This topic of this study is the use of educational technology in the K-12 school setting.
Along with increased use in our everyday lives, technology use in the classroom has increased
and lead to educational initiatives such as deployments as 1:1 devices in K-12 education (Harris,
Al-Bataineh, & Al-Bataineh, 2016). Technology use has the potential to increase student reading
skills (Cobb, 2010), and improve student learning and motivation (Cabi, 2018). Factors such as
teacher attitudes, teacher preparedness, and socio-economic status impact how well technology
can be implemented to improve student learning (Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011).
As a technology teacher in a school district that is currently in its first year of a 1:1
technology initiative, the topic of technology integration is important to my position. This year
students in grades 3-12 were provided 1:1 Chromebooks, while K-2 classrooms were provided
either iPads or Chromebooks with a 2:1 ratio. I am seen as a source of technology information
and education for both staff and students as our district figures out the best ways to integrate our
new digital devices.
Problem Statement
Even with increased use of educational technology, teachers are lacking professional
development related to technology integration. Educational leaders need to find ways to provide
teachers with professional development to increase their self-efficacy and allow them to
implement technology in ways that improve student learning.

Problem Background and Causes
To use technology devices and improve student learning, teachers need professional
development to learn how to better use technology devices. According to Reinhard, Thomas, and
Toriskie (2011), “simply having the physical access to technology within the school does not
significantly change learning outcomes” (p. 183). While it is often agreed that professional
development is needed, time and cost can both be reasons why teachers lack the needed
professional development (Ernst, Clark, & Bowers, 2017).
Research Question
What impact does a technology integration training have on teachers’ self-efficacy
regarding integrating technology in the classroom?
Topic and Problem Conclusion
It is important that teachers have the necessary technology integration training to
confidently use technology in the classroom. Studies have shown that an increased use of
technology devices in K-12 classrooms has lead to a need for technology integration training.
There are many options when it comes to providing training to teachers. By studying the impact
of a technology integration training on teachers’ self-efficacy regarding integrating technology in
the classroom, insights may be gained about the best ways to provide needed technology
training.
Chapter 2 - Review of the Literature

Overview of the Literature
In recent decades, technology use has increased in almost every aspect of our lives,
making communication faster and everyday tasks simpler (Harris, Al-Bataineh, & Al-Bataineh,
2016). Legislation and innovation have lead to educational initiatives such as deployments as 1:1
devices in K-12 education (Harris et al., 2016). With new technology initiatives comes the need
to prepare teachers for classroom technology use. Reinhart, Thomas, and Toriskie (2011) note
that “simply having the physical access to technology within the school does not significantly
change learning outcomes” (p. 183). It is imperative that teachers receive the professional
development that they need to use classroom technology to its fullest potential and increase
student learning (Hughes & Ooms, 2004).
Technology Use in the Classroom
The use of technology in the classroom has changed drastically in recent decades. Acts
and programs such as Educate America, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top, signed
by presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama respectively, have called for improved technology
use by schools in America (Harris et al., 2016). With the increase of technology use, teachers
have been integrating technology into their classroom in a variety of ways. One example of
technology use impacting student learning was when teachers in Cleveland used technology
as a tool for differentiated instruction, in turn, increasing student reading scores (Cobb, 2010).
While some schools are effectively integrating technology to improve student learning, not
every school is equipped for successful technology use. Reinhart et al. (2011) acknowledge
two factors affecting technology use in schools: teachers’ attitudes towards technology use,
and the physical/digital infrastructure of the building or district. Socio-economic factors and
teacher readiness can have an immense impact on the use of technology to promote higher
order thinking skills in schools (Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011).
Educational Technology with 1:1 Devices
As technology use in K-12 education increases, many schools are deploying the use of
1:1 devices, meaning that the school or district provides one electronic device for each student.
Choosing the right device for 1:1 deployment can be a complicated task. Varier et al. (2017)
found that teachers and students preferred the Google Chromebook for its affordability and ease
of use. Getting started with 1:1 deployment can sometimes be a daunting and difficult task,
however, students and teachers have been found to agree that the benefits of student learning and
engagement were worth the initial difficulties (Varier et al., 2017). While 1:1 technology has the
potential to improve student learning and motivation (Cabi, 2018), not every school is using this
technology to its fullest potential. For example, third-grade teachers in one school were found to
be using technology for demonstration and independent practice, not higher order learning
(Urbina & Polly 2017). Adding devices and creating a 1:1 technology environment does not
necessarily lead to increased student learning (Hughes & Ooms, 2004).
The Need for Technology Professional Development for Teachers
While the amount of devices in schools has increased, simply putting technology in the
hands of students is not enough (Smith, 2018). Professional development for teachers has been
found to be a key element of successful technology-based instruction and 1:1 implementation
(Harris et al., 2016), (Cobb, 2010), (Thannimalai & Raman, 2018). DeSantis (2013) found that
attending technology professional development had a significant impact on teacher’s
self-efficacy. By attending long-term, scaffolded professional development, teachers felt more

prepared and were able to implement meaningful technology integration in their classrooms
(DeSantis, 2013). While the need for technology-focused professional development is apparent,
teachers and principals sometimes disagree on what that training should look like (Claro,
Nussbaum, López, & Contardo, 2017). Further supporting the important role played by building
principals when it comes to successful technology integration, Thannimalai and Raman (2018)
observed that, “Principals who create school vision for effective technology integration and
provide continuous professional development had been observed to be most effective in
influencing teachers integrating technology in the classroom” (p. 208). To ensure teachers are
implementing technology integration to better support learning, principals should provide
continuous professional development focused on content-specific technology uses (Hughes &
Ooms, 2004).
Effective Strategies for Professional Development
In addition to technology tools, teachers require access quality, educationally sound
professional development to adequately implement technology in the classroom
(Terrazas-Arellanes, Knox, Strycker, & Walden, 2016). DeSantis (2013) reports that
professional development works best when it is directly embedded in a school’s culture. A
long-term, scaffolded approach to professional development has been found to improve teachers’
confidence when it comes to implementing new technology in the classroom (DeSantis, 2013).
Effective methods for delivering technology professional development to teachers include
traditional face-to-face training (Terrazas-Arellanes et al., 2016), virtual technology coaches
(Sugar & Tryon 2014), technology facilitators (Reinhart et al., 2011). , and the use of
collaborative teacher groups (Fuller, 2000). Using online tools or digital facilitators can provide
schools with a flexible and cost-effective alternative to traditional face-to-face professional
development (Ernst, Clark, & Bowers, 2017). While Ernst et al. (2017) reported success with
flexible, online professional development, Hughes and Ooms (2004) found that content focused
face-to-face groups also worked well for some teachers.
Summary
With increased technology use in the classroom comes the need for increased
technology-related professional development for teachers (Terrazas-Arellanes et al., 2016). It is
important that school leaders recognize the need for technology training for teachers and find the
professional development method that will work best for their staff. With the right training,
teachers can better use technology to bring higher order thinking skills into their classroom and
improve student learning.

Chapter 3 - Research Methodology
Research Design
To investigate the effect of professional development on teachers’ self-efficacy
regarding integrating technology in the classroom, quantitative data will be collected through
action research. This study fits under action research in that it seeks to have a positive change in
current technology training practices. The problem addressed in this study, the need for more
technology training, will be addressed in a practical way in a real school setting.
Participating teachers, who are in their first year of a 1:1 Chromebook initiative, will take
part in professional development related to technology integration. To measure the impact of this
technology training, participants will complete a survey before and after the professional
development. The survey will collect quantitative data showing teachers’ level of self-efficacy
regarding integrating technology in the classroom. Teachers’ pre-technology integration training
self-efficacy levels will be compared with post-technology integration training self-efficacy
levels to determine the effect of the technology integration training.
Research Question
What impact does a technology integration training have on teachers’ self-efficacy
regarding integrating technology in the classroom?
Participants
Participants will be teachers from an intermediate school in rural Iowa. This group
consists of 32 teachers, with experience ranging from first-year teachers to veteran teachers with
10+ years of experience. There are 30 female and 2 male teachers. Twenty-two of the teachers
are classroom teachers, 5 teach related arts, and 5 teach special ed/intervention. All the teachers
teach grades 3-5 with access to 1:1 technology. All teachers will be invited to participate,
however, some may choose not to participate.
Data Collection Instruments and Methods
Data will be collected through a pre/post survey to measure participants’ self-efficacy
related to integrating technology. The survey will ask participants to use a five-point scale to rate
their knowledge and comfort teaching certain technology applications and methods.
The survey used to collect data utilizes a five-point Likert-type scale. Items on the survey
will be weighted from 1 to 5. Participants’ answers will then be totaled to provide a score
showing each teachers’ self-efficacy level with implementing technology. Participants’ responses
will be collected in a spreadsheet, where descriptive statistics will be used to examine results.
The mean response rate from the pre-survey will be compared to that of the post-survey showing
the impact of the technology integration training.
Data Security and Confidentiality
To gain informed consent from participants, a message will be included at the top of the
survey informing participants of the survey’s purpose along with a link to the full consent form,
signed by the building principal. Participants will also be informed that by completing and
submitting the survey they provide consent for the researcher to use their answers. Participants
will also be informed that any information submitted through the survey will be kept
confidential. Any sensitive pieces of information shared by participants will not be included in
reports or discussions of collected data. All data collected through this study will be kept in a
secured online file system.
Summary
In conclusion, this action research study will collect quantitative data to show the impact
of a technology integration training on teachers’ self-efficacy regarding technology integration.
The teachers involved in this study are starting their first year of a 1:1 Chromebook initiative
with students in grades 3-5. With new technology initiatives, comes the need for technology
integration training. Technology integration training will be provided to the participating
teachers. The impact of this technology training on teachers’ self-efficacy will be measured with
a pre/post survey. The survey will be given to participants both before and after the training.
Data from the survey will be weighted to provide a score of self-efficacy. The mean response
rates from the pre and post surveys will be compared to show the impact of the technology
integration training.
Chapter 4 - Results
Results Overview
Of the 32 invited participants, 13 teachers provided consent and participated in both the
pre and post-surveys. The 13 participants included 1 3rd grade teacher, 5 4th grade teachers, 5
related arts teachers, and 2 special education/intervention teachers. Three teachers reported
having 1-3 years of teaching experience, 4 had 4-6 years of experience, 2 had 7-9 years, and 4
had 10+ years of teaching experience.
In each survey, participants were asked to rate their comfort level with 17 technology
applications on a scale from 1-5. Scores were then totaled to provide a self-efficacy score for
each participant. The highest possible self-efficacy score was 85, with 17 the lowest possible
score. Self-Efficacy scores from the pre-survey ranged from 52-67 with a mean score of 60.3.
The post-survey showed a slight increase in scores with a range of 53-77 and a mean score of
66.8. The average score for each technology application increased from the pre-survey to the
post-survey, with the exception of two applications.
Data analysis
To collect data, a survey was given to participants both before and after the technology
training. In each survey, participants rated their overall comfort level integrating technology on a
scale of 1-5. In the pre-survey, scores for this question ranged from 3-4 with a mean score of 3.7.
Scores increased in the post-survey with a range of 3-5 and a mean score of 4.1. Of the 13
participants, 6 reported a higher overall comfort level on the post-survey. Six participants
reported overall comfort level stayed the same, while one participant reported a lower comfort
level following the training.

After reporting an overall comfort level with integrating technology in the classroom,
participants were asked to rate their comfort level with 17 different technology applications on a
scale from 1-5. Ratings from each application were then totaled to give each participant a
Self-Efficacy score (see Table 1). Eleven out of 13 participants’ self-efficacy scores increased
following the technology training, while one stayed the same, and one lowered by one point.
Overall, the mean self-efficacy score increased from 60.3 to 66.8.
Table 1
Participant Self-Efficacy Scores
Participant Number Pre-Survey Score Post-Survey Score
1 67 73
2 67 73
3 51 55
4 58 62
5 53 70
6 54 53
7 71 71
8 61 73
9 64 77
10 52 56
11 63 65
12 63 67
13 60 73
Mean 60.3 66.8
Table 1. Participants totaled self-efficacy scores.

Of the 17 technology applications included in the survey, the average score increased for
all but two applications (see Figure 1). The applications with the largest increases were Chrome
Extensions and Google Drawings with increases of 0.92 and 0.77 respectively. The average
scores for the applications Peardeck and Screencastify both increased by 0.69 points. The
average score for the application Kahoot showed no change, while the Google Slides and
Facebook both showed a decreased score of 0.15. The rest of the applications’ average scores
increased by 0.15-0.54 following the technology training.
Figure 1. Comparison of average Pre-Workshop and Post-Workshop Self-Efficacy scores,

broken down by technology application.
Answers to the Research Questions
The goal of this study was to answer the question: What impact does a technology
integration training have on teachers’ self-efficacy regarding integrating technology in the
classroom? Following the technology integration training, the mean self-efficacy score increased
from 60.3 to 66.8. While not a significant increase, the mean scores show that the technology
training had a positive impact on teacher’s self-efficacy regarding integrating technology in the
classroom.
Chapter 5 - Discussion and Conclusion
Overview
By comparing scores from the pre and post-surveys, it can be seen that the provided
technology integrations training led to an increase in teachers’ self-efficacy regarding integrating
technology in the classroom. While not a significant increase, the training still had a positive
impact on the average self-efficacy scores.
Problem Solutions
The problem addressed by this study was teachers’ lack of professional development
related to technology integration. With limited time and resources, it can be difficult for
educational leaders to find ways to provide teachers with the professional development needed to
increase their self-efficacy and allow teachers to implement technology in ways that increase
student learning. This technology integration training was provided entirely online. Teachers
were able to access learning materials in a manner and timeframe that was convenient for them.
While not completely solving the problem of providing teachers with necessary professional
development, online training does give leaders an additional option for providing technology
training.
Strengths and Weaknesses
One strength of this study was the survey used to collect data on teachers’ self-efficacy
related to technology integration. To get a good idea of teachers’ own confidence in teaching
certain items, it only makes sense that they self-report their level of comfort. By giving the same
survey both before and after the technology training, scores were able to be compared showing
the impact of the training. Another strength of this project was the professional development
training itself. Options and flexible times made it easy for more teachers to join in and learn
when it was convenient for them. Some participants commented informally about the ease of
accessing course materials through Facebook or Google Classroom.
One weakness of this study is that random sampling was not used to select participants
for experimental and control groups. Participants volunteered to join the study, rather than were
selected. Another weakness would be the small number of participants. The training was offered
during a limited time and was optional to teachers which led to a small number of participants
that were able to finish all necessary items in the time given.
Influential Factors
There are a few factors that may have skewed the findings of this study. Because the
training was optional and limited by time, only a few teachers participated. The trainings took
place at the start of the holiday season when many are busy with family activities. The teachers
that did participate may have had a higher starting self-efficacy than those teachers that choose
not to participate. Had the project included more teachers, there might have been a wider range
of self-efficacy scores and possibly more room for growth. Additionally, the participants were all
known friends and co-workers of the researcher which may have impacted their participation and
answers on the pre and post-surveys.
Further Investigation
While the results of this study show the technology training having a positive impact on
teacher’ self-efficacy scores, more investigation is needed to learn about teachers’ attitudes
toward the online training. Qualitative data collected alongside the quantitative data would have
been a good addition to this study. Furthermore, more research is needed on the best ways to
share training materials with teachers through online platforms. Is Facebook or Google
Classroom a better option? When are the best times to post resources? What types of resources
are most beneficial to teachers? Further investigation of these questions would help to improve
teacher training and continue to help teachers improve their use of technology tools and
positively impact student learning.

References
Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., & Brizee, A.
(2013). General format. Retrieved from
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
Cabi, E. (2018). The Impact of the Flipped Classroom Model on Students' Academic
Achievement. International Review Of Research In Open & Distance Learning, 19(3),
202.
Claro, M. m., Nussbaum, M. m., López, X. x., & Contardo, V. v. (2017). Differences in Views of
School Principals and Teachers regarding Technology Integration. Journal Of
Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 42-53.
Cobb, A. (2010). To Differentiate or Not to Differentiate? Using Internet-Based Technology in
the Classroom. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education, 11(1), 37-45.
DeSantis, J. D. (2013). Exploring the Effects of Professional Development for the Interactive
Whiteboard on Teachers’ Technology Self-Efficacy. Journal Of Information Technology
Education, 12343.
Ernst, J., Clark, A., & Bowers, S. (2017). Cyber-supported Professional Learning Experiences
that Build Technology and Engineering Educators' Practice. Journal Of Technology
Studies, 43(2), 14-24.
Fuller, H. L. (2000). First Teach Their Teachers: Technology Support and Computer Use in
Academic Subjects. Journal Of Research On Computing In Education, 32(4), 511.

Harris, J. L., Al-Bataineh, M. T., & Al-Bataineh, A. (2016). One to One Technology and Its
Effect on Student Academic Achievement and Motivation. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 7(4), 368-381.
Hughes, J. E., & Ooms, A. (2004). Content-Focused Technology Inquiry Groups: Preparing
Urban Teachers to Integrate Technology to Transform Student Learning. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 397–411.
Reinhart, J. j., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. M. (2011). K-12 Teachers: Technology Use and the
Second Level Digital Divide. Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 38(3/4), 181-193.
Smith, S. (2018). Children's Negotiations of Visualization Skills During a Design-Based
Learning Experience Using Nondigital and Digital Techniques. Interdisciplinary Journal
Of Problem-Based Learning, 12(2), 6-20.
Sugar, W., & Tryon, P. (2014). Development of a Virtual Technology Coach to Support
Technology Integration for K-12 Educators. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To
Improve Learning, 58(3), 54. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0752-7
Terrazas-Arellanes, F. E., Knox, C., Strycker, L. A., & Walden, E. (2016). A Face-to-Face
Professional Development Model to Enhance Teaching of Online Research Strategies.
Journal Of Information Technology Education, 15335.
Thannimalai, R., & Raman, A. (2018). The Influence of Principals' Technology Leadership and
Professional Development on Teachers' Technology Integration in Secondary Schools.
Malaysian Journal Of Learning And Instruction, 15(1), 203-228.

Urbina, A., & Polly, D. (2017). Examining elementary school teacher's integration of technology
and enactment of TPACK in mathematics. International Journal Of Information &
Learning Technology, 34(5), 439. doi:10.1108/IJILT-06-2017-0054
Varier, D. v., Dumke, E., Abrams, L., Conklin, S., Barnes, J., & Hoover, N. (2017). Potential of
one-to-one technologies in the classroom: teachers and students weigh in. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 65(4), 967-992.

Appendix A
Technology Integration
Training
8 Lessons to Improve Teacher’s Technology Integration Skills

Fall 2018

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 1
Introduction 2
Part 1: Teacher Productivity Tools 3

Lesson 1: Chrome Extensions 3
Lesson 2: Parent Communication and Social Media 4
Part 2: Google Slides and Drawings 5

Lesson 3: Google Slides Part One 5
Lesson 4: Google Slides Part Two 6
Lesson 5: Google Drawings 7
Part 3: Student Voice and Choice 8

Lesson 6: Student Voice 8
Lesson 7: Student Choice 9
Part 4: Assessment and Data Collection 10

Lesson 8: Google Forms and Google Sheets 10
Appendix 11
Appendix A- Lesson 1 Slides 11
Appendix 2- Lesson 2 Slides 15
Appendix C - Lesson 3 Slides 16
Appendix D- Lesson 4 Slides 18
Appendix E - Lesson 5 Slides 21
Appendix F- Lesson 6 Slides 24

Introduction
This unit consists of eight one-hour lessons designed to improve teachers’ self-efficacy
related to technology integration.
Each lesson will follow a four-component format including a pre-instructional activity,

content presentation, learner participation, and follow-through activities.
Pre-instructional activities will gauge participants’ knowledge of the content to be
addressed. The content presentation component of each lesson will present new
learning to participants, usually through a slides presentation. Learner participation will
allow participants time to explore and practice using the tools or apps presented, while
follow-through activities will help teachers plan for a way to use their new learning in the
classroom.
Instructional Goal
By the end of instruction, participants’ self-efficacy scores, as shown by the Technology

Integration Survey, will increase by at least 5 points.
Performance Objective: G iven instruction about a technology tool or app, participants

will be able to list at least one way to use the tool or app in the classroom.
Assessment
Participants will complete the Technology Integration Survey both before and after
instruction. Self-efficacy scores from the surveys will be compared to show possible
growth.
Resources
All lessons in this unit will be presented digitally using an online learning platform.
Instructors and participants need their own computers with access to Google Chrome
and a Google account.

Part 1: Teacher Productivity Tools
Lesson 1: Chrome Extensions

Performance Objective:
Given instruction about Chrome Extensions, participants will be able to list at least one
way to use Chrome Extensions in the classroom.
Resources or Materials Needed:

● Computers with access to Google Chrome
● Lesson 1: Chrome Extensions Slides (See Appendix A)
Time: 60 minutes
Lesson Steps:
Step 1: Pre-Instructional Activities: Discussion- What do you already know about
Chrome Extensions? What are some that you use?
Step 2: Content Presentation: Lesson 1: Chrome Extensions Slides
Step 3: Learner Participation: Allow time for participants to install and try out Chrome
Extensions introduced.
Step 4: Follow-Through Activities: Discussion- What is one Chrome Extension you will
use in the classroom?
Lesson Plan Summary: P ost the pre-instructional discussion question in the online
learning platform. Participants will then comment on the discussion with Chrome
Extensions they already know about and/or use personally. Next, present and share the
slides for Lesson 1. Following the presentation, participants will have time to install and
try out Chrome Extensions from the presentation and discussion. End the session by
having participants comment with a Chrome Extension they are going to try out
themselves and how it will impact their classroom/ learning environment.

Lesson 2: Parent Communication and Social Media

Given instruction about parent communication tools and social media, participants will
be able to list at least one way to use these tools or apps in the classroom.

● Computers with access to Google Chrome
● Lesson 2: Parent Communication and Social Media Slides (See Appendix B)
Time: 60 minutes
Lesson Steps:
Step 1: Pre-Instructional Activities: Discussion Question: What are your go-to ways to
communicate with parents?
Step 2: Content Presentation: Present slides to participants.
Step 3: Learner Participation: Time to practice using new tools/ apps.
Step 4: Follow-Through Activities: Discuss: What new app or website from this week
will you try out?

Lesson Plan Summary: P
ost the pre-instructional discussion question in the online
learning platform. Participants will then comment on the discussion with their go-to
ways for communicating with parents. Next, present and share the slides for Lesson 2.
Following the presentation, participants will have time to try out apps and websites from
the presentation and discussion. End the session by having participants comment with
a new app or tool that they are going to try out themselves and how it will impact their
classroom/ learning environment.

Part 2: Google Slides and Drawings
Lesson 3: Google Slides Part One

Given instruction about Google Slides, participants will be able to list at least one way to
use Google Slides in the classroom.

● Computers with access to Google Chrome and Google Drive
● Lesson 3: Google Slides Part One (See Appendix C)
Time: 60 minutes
Lesson Steps:
Step 1: Pre-Instructional Activities: Discussion Question: Is Google Slides or
Powerpoint your go-to when you need to make a presentation?
Step 3: Learner Participation: Time to practice using Google Slides.
Step 4: Follow-Through Activities: Discuss: What is one new way you can use Google
Slides to impact learning in your classroom?

learning platform. Participants will then comment on the discussion with their go-to tool
for making presentations. Next, present and share the slides for Lesson 3. Following the
presentation, participants will have time to try out what they learned from the
presentation and discussion. End the session by having participants comment with
something new they are going to try out themselves and how it will impact their

Lesson 4: Google Slides Part Two

Given instruction about Google Slides, participants will be able to list at least one way to
use Google Slides in the classroom.

● Lesson 4: Google Slides Part Two
Time: 60 minutes
Lesson Steps:
Step 1: Pre-Instructional Activities: Discussion Question: Have you ever seen Google
Slides used for something other than a slide presentation? How was it used?
Step 3: Learner Participation: Time to practice using new features of Google Slides.
Slides to impact learning in your classroom?

learning platform. Participants will then comment on the discussion with other ways to
use Google Slides. Next, present and share the slides for Lesson 4. Following the

Lesson 5: Google Drawings

Given instruction about Google Drawings, participants will be able to list at least one
way to use Google Drawings in the classroom.

● Lesson 5: Google Drawings
Time: 60 minutes
Lesson Steps:
Step 1: Pre-Instructional Activities: Discussion Question: How would you rate your
previous experience using Google Drawings?
Step 3: Learner Participation: Time to practice using new features of Google Drawings.
Drawings to impact learning in your classroom?

learning platform. Participants will then comment on the discussion with other ways to
use Google Slides. Next, present and share the slides for Lesson 5. Following the

Part 3: Student Voice and Choice
Lesson 6: Student Voice

Given instruction about apps and websites to promote student voice, participants will be
able to list at least one way to use student voice in the classroom.

● Lesson 6: Student Voice
Time: 60 minutes
Lesson Steps:
Step 1: Pre-Instructional Activities: Discussion Question: How do you make sure every
student is heard in your classroom?
Step 3: Learner Participation: Time to practice using new tools and websites from the
presentation.
Step 4: Follow-Through Activities: Discuss: What is one new tool you will use to
improve student voice in your classroom?

learning platform. Participants will then comment on the discussion with ways to
promote student voice. Next, present and share the slides for Lesson 6. Following the

Lesson 7: Student Choice

Given instruction about apps and websites to promote student choice, participants will
be able to list at least one way to use student choice in the classroom.

● Lesson 7: Student Choice
Time: 60 minutes
Lesson Steps:
Step 1: Pre-Instructional Activities: Discussion Question: What are some ways you give
students choices in your classroom?
presentation.
Step 4: Follow-Through Activities: Discuss: What is one new tool you will use to
improve student choice in your classroom?

learning platform. Participants will then comment on the discussion with ways to
promote student choice. Next, present and share the slides for Lesson 7. Following the
something new they are going to try out themselves and how it will impact student
choice in their classroom/ learning environment.

Part 4: Assessment and Data Collection
Lesson 8: Google Forms and Google Sheets

Given instruction about Google Forms and Google Sheets, participants will be able to
list at least one way to use forms or sheets in the classroom.

● Lesson 8: Student Choice
Time: 60 minutes
Lesson Steps:
Step 1: Pre-Instructional Activities: Discussion Question: How would you rate your
experience using Google Forms and Google Sheets?
presentation.
Step 4: Follow-Through Activities: Discuss: What is one new way you will use Google
Forms or Sheets in your classroom?

learning platform. Participants will then comment on the discussion with how they rate
their knowledge of Google Forms and Sheets. Next, present and share the slides for
Lesson 7. Following the presentation, participants will have time to try out what they
learned from the presentation and discussion. End the session by having participants
comment with a new way they are going to use Google Forms or Google Sheets and
how it will impact their classroom/ learning environment.

Appendix
Appendix A- Lesson 1 Slides




Appendix 2- Lesson 2 Slides

Appendix C- Lesson 3 Slides


Appendix D- Lesson 4 Slides


Appendix E- Lesson 5 Slides


Appendix F- Lesson 6 Slides


Appendix G- Lesson 7 Slides

Appendix H- Lesson 8 Slides

Appendix B
Technology Survey
Thank you for participating in this survey. By completing and submitting this survey you agree
for your responses to be used for data collection. All information submitted through this survey
will be kept confidential.
Select the answer that best describes you and your comfort integrating technology in your
classroom.
1. What grade level(s) do you teach?

❏ 3
❏ 4
❏ 5
❏ Other
2. How many years of teaching experience do you have?

❏ 1-3
❏ 4-6
❏ 7-9
❏ 10+
3. On a scale of 1-5, how would you describe your overall comfort level with integrating
technology in your classroom?
❏ 1- Not at all comfortable
❏ 2-
❏ 3- Somewhat comfortable
❏ 4-
❏ 5- Very comfortable
For the following items, rate your knowledge and comfort level with using each technology
application for educational purposes.
1 2 3 4 5
Not sure what I’ve heard of I know about I sometimes I use this for
this is this this, but don’t use this for learning all the
use it for learning learning time
4. Google Keep ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
5. Chrome Extensions ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
6. Screencastify ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
7. Seesaw ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
8. Pear Deck ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
9. Twitter ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
10. Facebook ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
11. Instagram ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
12. Google Slides ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
13. Google Drawings ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
14. Google Forms ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
15. Google Sheets ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
16. Google Sites ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
17. Flipgrid ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
18. Padlet ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
19. YouTube ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
20. Kahoot ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.

Your participation is greatly appreciated!
Appendix C
Informed Consent
Adult Participants
Western Governors University - Teachers College
MED, Learning and Technology

Technology Integration Training
Introduction
Stephanie Hoppenworth, a graduate student researcher in the Teachers College of Western Governors
University, wishes to conduct a research study for the purpose of measuring the impact of a technology
integration training on teacher’s self-efficacy regarding integrating technology in the classroom. Approval
of the building principal to conduct this study was obtained prior to this announcement. By signing this
consent form, you agree to participate in the study. All data collected will be reported as aggregated
summaries. Individual names will not be used.
Description of the Project
Participating teachers will participate in technology integration training. A survey will be given to
participants in order to measure the impact of the technology integration training on teacher’s
self-efficacy regarding integrating technology in the classroom
To fit with teachers’ busy schedules, the professional development will be provided digitally in an online
environment. The instructional unit will consist of four two-hour sessions covering tech tools and digital
resources teacher can use in the classroom to improve student learning. Topics covered by this unit
include presentation tools, apps to promote student voice, tools for data collection, and assessment tools.
Each session will introduce participants to the tool(s) being used, provide examples of how to use the
tools, and ask participants to suggest a way they could use the tool in their own classroom.
Benefits and Risks of the Study
All anticipated risks to participation in this study are minimal and no greater than those which are
normally encountered in daily work activity. Some participants may feel anxious about online learning if
they are inexperienced with this type of learning environment. The researcher will seek to minimize the
anxiety risks by providing detailed information on accessing the online learning materials.
Possible participant benefits may include learning more about integrating technology in the classroom.
Participants will be informed that the study activities are intended to help them better integrate technology
in the classroom, enabling them to become more confident and proficient. The study may help the
researcher and other stakeholders acquire additional training techniques to facilitate learning.
Confidentiality
The data gathered from this research will be private and confidential. Your name will not be used in any
report. Data will be reported in the aggregate.
Voluntary Participation and Withdrawal
Your participation in the study is completely voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any time.
Participants may withdraw at any time from survey participation and will not be penalized for
non-participation. Participants may also request that their individual results be excluded from the final
report. To withdraw from the study, the participant must notify the researcher.
Questions, Rights and Complaints
Participants have a right to view the results of the study. If you have questions about this study, please
contact Stephanie Hoppenworth by email: shopp23@wgu.edu.
If you have questions about your rights or unresolved questions or complaints pertaining to the study,
contact the WGU IRB Chair by email: irb@wgu.edu.
Consent Statement
By completing this online survey, you agree to participate in the study and have had your study
participation questions answered. You also acknowledge that you have received a copy of this form.
____________________________
Designated Official Signature
____________________________
Date

Capstone Impact of Technology Integration Training

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Capstone Impact of Technology Integration Training

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Impact of Technology Integration Training

A Capstone Presented to the Teachers College Faculty

of Western Governors University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Learning and Technology

technology in the classroom.

Chapter 1 - Topic and Problem 6

Problem Background and Causes 8

Topic and Problem Conclusion 8

Chapter 2 - Review of the Literature 8

Overview of the Literature 9

Chapter 3 - Research Methodology 13

Data Collection Instruments and Methods 14

Data Security and Confidentiality 14

Answers to the Research Questions 18

Chapter 5 - Discussion and Conclusion 20

Strengths and Weaknesses 20

Chapter 1 - Topic and Problem

new digital devices.

implement technology in ways that improve student learning.

Problem Background and Causes

professional development (Ernst, Clark, & Bowers, 2017).

What impact does a technology integration training have on teachers’ self-efficacy

regarding integrating technology in the classroom?

Topic and Problem Conclusion

It is important that teachers have the necessary technology integration training to

of a technology integration training on teachers’ self-efficacy regarding integrating technology in

Chapter 2 - Review of the Literature

student learning (Hughes & Ooms, 2004).

Technology Use in the Classroom

order thinking skills in schools (Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011).

Educational Technology with 1:1 Devices

necessarily lead to increased student learning (Hughes & Ooms, 2004).

The Need for Technology Professional Development for Teachers

found to be a key element of successful technology-based instruction and 1:1 implementation

attending technology professional development had a significant impact on teacher’s

self-efficacy. By attending long-term, scaffolded professional development, teachers felt more

provide continuous professional development had been observed to be most effective in

implementing technology integration to better support learning, principals should provide

continuous professional development focused on content-specific technology uses (Hughes &

Effective Strategies for Professional Development

In addition to technology tools, teachers require access quality, educationally sound

professional development to adequately implement technology in the classroom

professional development works best when it is directly embedded in a school’s culture. A

Effective methods for delivering technology professional development to teachers include

traditional face-to-face training (Terrazas-Arellanes et al., 2016), virtual technology coaches

schools with a flexible and cost-effective alternative to traditional face-to-face professional

face-to-face groups also worked well for some teachers.

technology-related professional development for teachers (Terrazas-Arellanes et al., 2016). It is

improve student learning.

Chapter 3 - Research Methodology

To investigate the effect of professional development on teachers’ self-efficacy

technology training, will be addressed in a practical way in a real school setting.

regarding integrating technology in the classroom. Teachers’ pre-technology integration training

self-efficacy levels will be compared with post-technology integration training self-efficacy

levels to determine the effect of the technology integration training.

What impact does a technology integration training have on teachers’ self-efficacy

regarding integrating technology in the classroom?

however, some may choose not to participate.

Data Collection Instruments and Methods

Data will be collected through a pre/post survey to measure participants’ self-efficacy

the impact of the technology integration training.

Data Security and Confidentiality

Figure 1. Comparison of average Pre-Workshop and Post-Workshop Self-Efficacy scores,

(2013). General format. Retrieved from

Achievement. International Review Of Research In Open & Distance Learning, 19(3),

School Principals and Teachers regarding Technology Integration. Journal Of

Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 42-53.

the Classroom. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education, 11(1), 37-45.

Whiteboard on Teachers’ Technology Self-Efficacy. Journal Of Information Technology

that Build Technology and Engineering Educators' Practice. Journal Of Technology

Studies, 43(2), 14-24.

Academic Subjects. Journal Of Research On Computing In Education, 32(4), 511.

Effect on Student Academic Achievement and Motivation. Contemporary Educational

Technology, 7(4), 368-381.

Urban Teachers to Integrate Technology to Transform Student Learning. Journal of

Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 397–411.

Second Level Digital Divide. Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 38(3/4), 181-193.

Learning Experience Using Nondigital and Digital Techniques. Interdisciplinary Journal

Of Problem-Based Learning, 12(2), 6-20.

Improve Learning, 58(3), 54. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0752-7

Journal Of Information Technology Education, 15335.

Malaysian Journal Of Learning And Instruction, 15(1), 203-228.

and enactment of TPACK in mathematics. International Journal Of Information &

Learning Technology, 34(5), 439. doi:10.1108/IJILT-06-2017-0054

Technology Research & Development, 65(4), 967-992.

Performance Objective: G iven instruction about a technology tool or app, participants