Many schools are starting to adopt 1:1 computing with the goal of developing students’ 21st-century skills, which permit students not only to find out content but to accumulate critical skills (e.g., creativity, collaboration, and digital literacy) which will cause future careers (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). subsequent Generation Science Standards (Achieve, 2013) emphasized the connection between science, engineering, and technology and therefore the application of such ideas that allow scientists and engineers to “develop or improve technologies, often [raising] new questions for scientists’ investigations” (National Research Council, 2012, p. 203).
Technology offers teachers the power to rework the standard of instruction–to 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). Additionally, mobile 1:1 technology within the classroom offers many benefits to student learning. consistent with Lipponen (2002), technology can enhance peer interaction and group work, facilitate knowledge sharing, and distribute knowledge and expertise among the training community. By having technology used on a day to day within the classroom, teachers are improving their practice also as their students’ learning and knowledge advancement.
Researchers have demonstrated that technology integration is important to satisfy this goal (e.g., Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills, 2012); however, existing technology infrastructures are often insufficient to develop the specified outcomes of those implementations (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, Gielniak, & Peterson, 2012). Many current classroom teachers have yet to include technology into their teaching practices. Teachers often don’t understand or have the time to spend learning about the functionality of the devices.
According to Ifenthaler and Schweinbenz (2013), a majority of teachers are hospitable integrating tablets and feel they might enhance their practice, but others aren’t confident about employing a new device in their everyday instruction. additionally , the ways teachers integrate devices into their practice is usually 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 us government distributing Race to the highest funds for 1:1 mobile initiatives, developing a protocol for successful implementation of technology would benefit schools, teachers, and students.
Using a technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), this scientific research examined the classroom practice of two middle grades mathematics and science teachers integrating a 1:1 initiative. the subsequent questions guided our research:
What sorts of external and internal barriers exist within the classroom and faculty environments that influence technology use and integration by these teachers?
How do internal influences affect these teachers’ perceptions of their own pedagogical practices integrating technology?
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 unsure of the way to integrate technology into their everyday teaching (Greaves et al., 2012).
Teachers are an integral a part of integrating technology into K-12 classrooms. When technology is employed regularly within the classroom, teachers’ practices, also as students’ learning, improve (Kim et al., 2013). Classroom technology is integrated into content and pedagogical practices at the teacher’s discretion; not all teachers will integrate technology into their practice, and people 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 neighborhood 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).
Barriers, both internal and external, exist for teachers integrating technology. An external barrier are often described as institutional resources, like having access to available technology, time with technology, technical support, and therefore the technical infrastructure to adequately support technology integration (Hew & Brush, 2007). Internal barriers include attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy with technology, which all impact teacher technology integration (Kim et al., 2013). Specifically, one barrier that prohibits teachers from integrating technology into their practice is teachers’ own beliefs and luxury levels with technology.
In an early study by Ertmer (1999), barriers were categorized as first and second order barriers. Teachers cited first order or external barriers, like a scarcity of computers, computer software, and limited access to the web as reasons why they didn’t use technology within the classroom. Second order, or internal, barriers weren’t as frequently cited because the main barrier for technology integration.
When Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, and Sendurur (2012) revisited the first study 10 years later, this trend had reversed. They found that a majority of teachers listed internal barriers, like teacher attitudes and beliefs, because the main reason for lack of technology integration. When teachers were “asked to call the most important barrier, overall, to technology integration in their schools…[a majority] described other teachers’ internal barriers” (p. 433). Other internal barriers identified within the prevention of technology integration were teachers’ confidence with technology, beliefs about how students learn with technology, and teachers’ perceived value of technology within the classroom. during a 1:1 initiative school many of those first order, or external barriers, are not any longer a predominant issue; however, teachers’ second order, or internal, barriers still inhibit technology integration.
Professional development (PD) support in using technology might be a crucial factor for successful implementation by teachers in their classrooms. the various sorts of technology available for classroom use pose a spread of problems for teachers, yet, at an equivalent time offer many unique teaching opportunities. Kim et al. (2013) demonstrated that when teachers had access to technologies, workshops, and technical and pedagogical assistance, the amount of technology integration weren’t an equivalent . Instead, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs played a bigger role. The teachers who had more student-centered pedagogical beliefs were better at integrating technology as a neighborhood of their classroom, whereas those that had teacher-directed pedagogical beliefs were more likely to use technology as enrichment to the lesson (Kim et al., 2013).
Additionally, when teachers lack the knowledge of the way to use technology, their attempts to integrate it successfully are often limited (Koehler et al., 2014). This study built on previous work by Vannatta and Fordham (2004) who found three factors that best predicted how an educator integrated technology: time commitment, willingness to vary , and amount of technology training.
When examining technology integration in science specifically, Guzey and Roehrig (2009) found similar results to Kim et al. (2013). Guzey and Roehrig observed four beginning secondary science teachers’ technology integration over the course of 1 academic 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 “technology enthusiasts” and were easier with technology overall and searched for more opportunities to enhance their technology integration into their science instruction. These two teachers also exhibited a more student-centered pedagogical style than did the 2 teachers who struggled to integrate technology into their classroom instruction.
Two areas of research that haven’t been fully is examined are teacher self-efficacy—teachers’ beliefs about their classroom practice (Paraskeva, Bouta, & Papagianni, 2006)—and teacher computer self-efficacy—teachers’ beliefs about their ability to use technology within the classroom (Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross, & Specht, 2008). Previous research primarily examined teacher self-efficacy and computer self-efficacy with general technology within the classroom. This study will begin to look at a science and arithmetic teacher’s self-efficacy during a 1:1 mobile school and therefore the influence of professional development situated within the classroom thereon self-efficacy. Qualitatively, this research will examine how a teacher’s perceived classroom technology education differs, if at all, from the observed integration of technology.
Teacher technology self-efficacy may be a difficult topic to live using traditional experimental designs. Most of the quantitative research for studying teacher self-efficacy consistently has used descriptive research to assist define the phenomenon that’s happening. The studies use a sample at one point in time to work out teacher self-efficacy with technology within the classroom and use a self-report survey (Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008; Holden & Rada, 2011; Hsu, 2010; Kumar, Rose, & D’Silva, 2008; Mueller et al., 2008; Paraskeva et al., 2006; Teo, 2014; Vannatta & Fordham, 2004; Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006).
Using a single-time questionnaire to collect data about self-efficacy has both positive contributions and limitations. Results from analyzing questionnaire data are easily generalizable to other populations due to the doubtless sizable amount of participants within the studies. employing a questionnaire is additionally how to work out a general consensus of an outsized group of people . A limitation of the only point sample survey method is that the questionnaires are comprised of self-report data. the info collected are representative of the participants’ views of their technology use within the classroom at that specific point in time. Each participant may have a special understanding of technology integration and, thus, answer the questionnaire differently due to the differing viewpoints. This circumstance could affect the validity of the study through regression , by creating extreme scores on the instrument and thru personal variables generated by the individuals within the study. the standard of the self-report questionnaire also impacts the validity of those studies.
In a further examination of the literature, a couple of studies employed single-group experimental designs. Abbitt (2011) used one group, pre-posttest design to guage the connection between teacher self-efficacy beliefs toward technology integration and therefore the teachers’ perceived knowledge within the technological pedagogical content knowledge (also mentioned as technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, or TPACK) domains. In another study, Kopcha (2012) employed an equivalent design to work out the consequences of situated professional development on teachers’ technology integration within the classroom. Both studies had the participants complete a pre- and postquestionnaire.
Abbitt’s (2011) participants took a 16-week course on integrating technology within the classroom. This study was beneficial because it examined the effect of the 16-week long technology course on the participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy with technology. One impediment to the study’s usefulness was that the study gathered information only about the participants’ perceptions of data of TPACK domains and self-efficacy beliefs. No evidence of demonstrated knowledge of ability with technology was found.
Kopcha’s (2012) treatment was the implementation of situated PD provided by the researcher. Situated PD is when teachers are active learners, constructing their own knowledge, and therefore the PD takes place in classroom practice (Swan et al., 2002). The study used qualitative methods also as quantitative methods to gather data. The researcher conducted classroom observations of teachers using technology and one-on-one interviews to support the info collected via the questionnaires.
Research that specialize in science teachers’ self-efficacy with technology is restricted in scope. Graham et al. (2009) studied teacher TPACK confidence before and after knowledgeable development that focused on science subject-specific pedagogy and biology/earth science content knowledge. Graham et al. (2009) used a pre-and postquestionnaire associated with the four TPACK constructs that involve technology to look at science teachers’ confidence with TPACK. The study found that the very best confidence was in participants’ technology knowledge, which supports the authors’ notion that technology knowledge is foundational to developing confidence within the other three sorts of technology knowledge (i.e., technological content knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge, and technological pedagogical content knowledge). The participants’ lowest confidence was technology content knowledge, which might be because technology content knowledge is most closely linked with doing science as against teaching science. Educators were more confident in their ability to use technology to show science (e.g., data processing , PowerPoint presentations, and Internet research) than they were in their ability to use technologies that are designed to try to to science (e.g., digital probes and digital microscopes).