Running head: ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

Action Research Project

Megan Prichard
University of Missouri

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

2
Section I:
Introduction:
Without an exhaustive survey of schools in all 50 states, it is difficult to
determine just how many individual schools or districts have adopted a 1:1
device model. However, even a casual observer can see that the number of
schools which have adopted tablets or laptops to some extent has grown
exponentially since 2010, the year that the iPad was introduced. Schools
vary with regards to the type of device, or method in which those devices are
deployed - some teachers have a device for each student that is kept in the
classroom, other students bring their device home each day as though it
were a textbook.
Typically when a district decides to incorporate portable devices into
their curriculum, a great deal of time and resources are expended in teacher
training and professional development. Less time is usually spent on student
training, for one of two reasons: either the powers that be assume the
students will pick up the new tools more quickly, or they plan for the
teachers to direct the technology use in the classroom. After the formal
training and device deployment, however, evaluation becomes a bit more
nebulous. Most states incorporate some version of the ISTE standards for
technology in the classroom, however these standards address how
technology is used, not how much (Standards for Teachers 2016).
Area of Focus:

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

3
The purpose of this study is to determine to what extent high school
teachers continue to use technology in the second and third year of a 1:1
deployment and beyond, as well as the reasons for any change. The school
in question is a high school with approximately 450 students and 60
teachers, where all students and faculty members have had iPads since
2014.
Research Questions:
Does teacher technology use increase or decrease after the first year
of a 1:1 deployment, and if so, why?
Does teacher technology use increase or decrease in project
complexity after the first year of a 1:1 deployment, and if so, why?
Related Literature:
The field of educational technology is a constantly changing one, and
the one-to-one device classroom is a relatively new innovation. The most
commonly used devices include Apples iPad tablets, Chromebooks, and
Android tablets (1:1 Map, 2016). While there is little literature specifically
regarding the one-to-one classroom, research with a broader focus is usually
applicable to a setting where each student has a device - i.e. the study may
specifically reference a flipped classroom, which students are still able to
access with their individual devices.
The first area addressed is, naturally, teacher training. Some
professional development resources focus on face-to-face training sessions,
while others outline the ways in which online training modules can be used
for self-paced training. Collaborative training involving teachers of varying

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

4
levels of experience is seen as a benefit, since newer teachers benefit from
training in the technology as well as learning from their more experienced
colleagues (Liu, 2015). Collaboration does not necessarily mean face to
face,, and in fact a great deal of professional development hinges on the
use of a Personal Learning Network (PLN) that a teacher creates for herself
using social media such as Twitter (Ross, 2015). Regardless of the method or
delivery, research suggests that a teachers technology usage is directly
related to the length and quality of training they receive (Liu 2015).
A second area of focus is the effect of technology on student
engagement and achievement. Research has shown mixed results in this
regard. Some studies have shown that student test grades decrease with the
introduction of new technology (Kuyatt, 2015) while others report increased
student engagement and achievement (Zucker 2007). It has also been
argued that for technology usage to effect true change, it must reinvent the
way the classroom functions, rather than simply modifying traditional tasks
(Canuel 2011). While one could argue that engagement is too nebulous a
term to quantify in a study, no one is better suited to judge student
engagement than the teachers who see them in the classroom every day,
and thus it is an appropriate metric for this sort of question.
While a great deal has been written from a short-term perspective and
looking at student achievement and adoption, this is not the case for longterm usage of an innovation like 1:1 classrooms. Many researchers agree
that effective change occurs when an innovation is used for a longer term

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

5
(Hosman 2013), however as of yet there is little research in exactly how
usage changes over time. Every school is different, and thus research about
changing usage will be of little use if the why is not also analyzed.
Addressing this deficit will be a high priority as technology initiatives
continue to expand and schools districts want to ensure that they are making
the best use of their resources.
Description of the intervention or innovation:
In the fall of 2014, the North Montgomery school district initiated a 1:1
iPad rollout in grades 9-12, which was followed in the fall of 2015 by the
same initiative in the middle school. Elementary school students in grades
4-5 also received iPads in the fall of 2015, and plans are in place to extend
that program to grade 3 in the fall of 2016.

Section 2
Overview of Data Collection Strategies
All survey and interview questions need to be vetted by the technology
director and principals before I send them. In addition, each teacher will be
informed beforehand that participation is completely voluntary and the
surveys will be completely anonymous. While the interview questions and
results will be shown to administrators, no names will be attached. I hope to
encourage the teachers to be as involved in the interview as possible, since
the goal is to learn how to best help them in their classrooms.

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

6
All the interview and survey questions will be available for everyone to
see before I give them, and teachers will have the option of answering or not
answering as many as they are comfortable with. The survey will be given
online during the third trimester, and the interviews will follow shortly after,
during the period allotted for professional development. This will ensure that
teachers are not losing instructional or planning time.
Data Sources
First I will send out a survey for teachers in grades 9-12 to complete
(see Appendix D). This survey is fairly objective, and will be used to gather
some quantifiable data about usage, reception, etc. I am starting with a
survey so that the teachers get a sense of the type of question I will ask,
while at the same time giving me an idea of what (if any) portions of my
interviews may need to be modified based on the survey results. The survey
and interview questions will all need to be approved by the technology
director and building administrators beforehand.
After the initial survey, I will conduct interviews with groups of high
school teachers - the plan is to group them by department, since there is a
great deal of diversity in each department with regards to experience and
technology skill. These questions will build on the survey questions and
discuss what worked, what didnt, and how that may (or may not) have
affected their technology usage. Following those surveys I will meet with
principals and technology department members to discuss their own
perceptions of the iPad distribution.

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

7
Data Analysis Plan
As I analyze the data from these three assessments, I will start by
examining what teachers said about the training they received and if there is
a correlation between the training and the amount of classroom usage. I will
also see what types of training were the most helpful, and plan to do more of
those in the future.
The interviews will be very helpful for determining the why, in
addition to the what. At that point I will have an idea of how usage has
changed, hopefully the interviews will help me understand why it has
changed, and if changes need to be made at the training and administrative
level.

Section 3
1. Will there be other people involved in your action research
project? If so, who are they and what would be their
responsibilities?
The high schools principal and assistant principal will both approve the
questions in the survey and interview before they are sent. The technology
director will read and approve the assessments as well. Approximately 60
high school teachers and staff members will be surveyed and interviewed for
the data.
2. What negotiations would you need to undertake prior to
beginning your project?
In addition to the approval of the aforementioned administrators, each
teacher will check a box on the initial survey that gives me permission to use

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

8
all interview and survey data for the purpose of this project. Teachers will be
given the option to opt out, as well.
3. What is the projected timeline for collecting, analyzing, and
interpreting data?
The survey will be given during the third trimester of the 2015-2016
school year, before the school goes on Spring Break in April. The remaining
interviews will take place during the last few weeks of the trimester, while
the data will be analyzed and interpreted over the summer. This will coincide
with the professional development planning that takes place over the
summer, in hopes that changes to that training can be made that will utilize
the data.
4. What is the projected timeline for developing your recommended
actions?
Any recommended actions will be implemented during the 2016-2017
school year, or prior to iPad redistribution if the changes specifically affect
that event.
5. What would be your overall strategy for implementing any
recommended actions resulting from your project (e.g. , who would
need to be involved in the implementation process? what support
might you need? what factors in your school culture might inhibit or
support any innovation or intervention actions?)
Any changes made to professional development offered to teachers
must be nominally approved by the technology director. However, the staff
members who do this training operate with a large degree of autonomy, so it
is unlikely to pose any major problems. If changes are proposed for teacher

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

9
evaluation or classroom procedures, this would go through the high school
principal, and potentially the superintendent. Both the principal and
assistant principal are big proponents of classroom technology, and eager to
make sure that the iPad initiative works well for everyone concerned. With
that in mind, suggested changes that do not drastically affect the day-to-day
functions of the school are likely to be well-received.
6. What would be your process for ongoing monitoring (data
collection and interpretation) of recommended actions?
I meet frequently with the high school principals and technology
director, and would keep them up to date on any changes I was given the
authority to enact. Additional brief surveys and interviews will be
administered as needed during the block of time reserved every Monday for
professional development.

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

10

References

1:1 Map. 2016. (Interactive map from the Indiana Department of Education
showing
devices used in 1:1 districts). Retrieved from
http://www.doe.in.gov/elearning/11-map.
Canuel, R. (2011). Technology In Education: Research Says!. Education
Canada (Spring
2011), 33.
Carver, L. (2016). Teacher Perception of Barriers and Benefits in K-12
Technology Usage.
The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (January 2016),
volume 15 (1),
110-116.
Hosman, L. (2013). Technology, teachers, and training: Combining theory
with Macedonias
experience. International Journal of Education and Development using
Information and Communication Technology (2013), volume 9 (3), 2849

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

11
Kuyatt, A., Holland, G., & Jones, D. (2015). An Analysis Of Teacher
Effectiveness Related To
Technology Implementation In Texas Secondary Schools. Contemporary
Issues In Education Research (First Quarter 2015), volume 8 (1), 63-70.
Liu, S. H., Tsai, H. C., & Huang, Y. T. (2015). Collaborative Professional
Development of
Mentor Teachers and Pre-Service Teachers in Relation to Technology
Integration.
Educational Technology & Society, volume 18 (3), 161172.
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of Technology Implementation: a framework for
measuring
classroom technology use. International Society for Technology in
Education
(November 1995), 41-45.
Puentedura, R. (2012). SAMR: Guiding Development. Retrieved from
http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/01/19/SAMR_GuidingDev
elopmen
t.pdf
Ross, C., Maninger, R., LaPrairie, K., & Sullivan, S. (2015). The Use of Twitter
in the Creation
of Educational Professional Learning Opportunities. Administrative
Issues Journal:

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

12
Connecting Education, Practice, and Research (Spring 2015), volume 5
(1), 55-76.
Standards for Teachers (2016). (Technology standards for teachers from the
International
Society for Technology in Education). Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-teachers
Zucker, A., and Hug, S. (2007). A Study of the 1:1 Laptop Program at the
Denver School of
Science & Technology. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED500425.

Appendix A: Literature Matrix

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

13
Authors

Year

Variables Considered
1:1?

Amt of
teacher
usage

Type of
teacher
usage

Type and
amt of
training

Moersch

1995

Ross

2015

Canuel

2011

Faulder

2011

Daniel

2012

Ginns

2007

Zucker

2007

Liu

2015

Kuyatt

2015

Carver

2016

Redman

2013

Oliver

2013

Kalota

2013

Carmo

2013

Hosman

2013

Inan

2010

Baker

2012

Change in
usage
over time

x
x
x

x
x

Appendix B: Data Collection Matrix

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

14

Question

Data Source
1

Data Source 2

Data Source
3

Does teacher technology

Online
use increase or decrease
Survey
after the first year of a 1:1
deployment?

Interviews with
teachers

Focus Groups
(staff and
admins)

If use increases or
decreases after the first
year, why?

Interviews
with teachers

Focus Groups
(staff and
admins)

Does teacher technology

use increase or decrease
in project complexity after
the first year of a 1:1
deployment?

Online
Survey

Interviews with
teachers

If use increases or
decreases in project
complexity, why?

Interviews
with teachers

Focus Groups
(staff and
admins)

Focus Groups
(staff and
admins)

Appendix C: Data Analysis Matrix

Survey:
Teacher
technology
usage and
attitudes

Add up answers to
determine most helpful
training sessions

Compare answers to
determine whether usage
has increased or decreased.

Interview:
Attitudes
towards 1:1
rollout and
classroom usage

Gather teacher responses

to why has your usage
changed

Gather teacher responses to

how has your usage
changed

Focus Groups:
Perceptions of
usage and
reception.

Gather admin and staff

responses to what is
your perception of
teacher usage

Gather admin and staff

responses to what do you
think could be done
differently

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

15

Appendix D: Instrument
This project also includes an open-ended interview with teachers and
staff members regarding how and why their usage may have changed.
Link to survey: http://goo.gl/forms/cevT4kImrJ
1. Demographics
a. How long have you been teaching?
b. In what department do you teach?
2. Pre-iPad
a. How would you describe your initial reaction when the iPad
distribution was announced?
b. How would you describe your comfort level with classroom
technology BEFORE the 1:1 iPad distribution?
c. The following are a selected list of training sessions that were
offered before the iPad distribution. Check all that you found
helpful or very helpful.
d. What type of training did you NOT receive that you would have
appreciated?
e. How often did you anticipate using iPads in your class BEFORE
the iPad distribution?
3. Year 1
a. What (if any) expectations were you given for iPad usage in Year
1?
b. What (if any) expectations did you set for yourself for iPad usage
in Year 1?
c. The following are a selected list of training sessions that were
offered during the 2014-2015 year. Check all that you found
helpful or very helpful.
d. How would you describe the AMOUNT of ongoing technology
training you received during Year 1?
e. What types of tasks did you primarily use the iPads for in Year 1?
f. How often did you use iPads in the classroom during the FIRST
TRIMESTER of Year 1?
g. How often did you use iPads in the classroom during the THIRD
TRIMESTER of Year 1?
4. Year 2

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

16
a. What (if any) expectations were you given for iPad usage in Year
2?
b. What (if any) expectations did you set for yourself for iPad usage
in Year 2?
c. The following are a selected list of training sessions that were
offered during the 2015-2016. Check all that you found helpful or
very helpful.
d. How would you describe the AMOUNT of ongoing technology
training you received during Year 2?
e. What types of tasks did you primarily use the iPads for in Year 2?
f. How often did you use iPads in the classroom during the FIRST
TRIMESTER of Year 2?