Lessons learned

1 Lessons Learned: An IPA Study of Administrators’, Instructional Coaches’, and Teachers’ Experiences with 1:1 Implementation at a Southeastern United States Urban High School A doctoral thesis proposal by Taylor Plumblee to The College of Professional Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education In the field of Curriculum, Teaching, Learning, and Leadership Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts May 28, 2019 2 Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................ 4 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study............................................................................................... 6 Background of the Study ............................................................................................................. 7 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 8 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 8 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 11 Definitions of Key Terminology ............................................................................................... 12 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................. 13 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 19 Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 21 21st-Century Skills ..................................................................................................................... 22 Evolution of Technology Integration ........................................................................................ 27 Factors that Impact Effective Technology Integration .............................................................. 33 Factors that Influence Successful 1:1 Implementation ............................................................. 42 Benefits of 1:1 implementation ................................................................................................. 49 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 51 Chapter 3: Research Methodology ............................................................................................... 54 Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 54 Research Setting ........................................................................................................................ 55 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 56 Sources of Data ......................................................................................................................... 58 Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................................... 59 Data Collection and Management ............................................................................................. 60 Data Analysis Procedures.......................................................................................................... 61 Ethical Considerations............................................................................................................... 64 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 66 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 66 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis ................................................................................................. 67 Analysis of Themes ................................................................................................................... 71 1:1 Implementation Presented Unique Possibilities .................................................................. 72 Extensive Teacher Support Structure ........................................................................................ 85 3 Findings ................................................................................................................................... 108 Chapter 5: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations .................................................. 110 Recommendations for Practice................................................................................................ 124 Recommendations for Research .............................................................................................. 127 Final Thoughts......................................................................................................................... 128 Epilogue ...................................................................................................................................... 129 References ................................................................................................................................... 133 Appendix A - Semi-Structured Interview Protocol - Teachers................................................... 141 Appendix B - Semi-Structured Interview Protocol – Admin and Instructional Coaches ........... 143 Appendix C - Screening Phone Call Script ................................................................................ 145 Appendix D - Research Participation Request ........................................................................... 147 Appendix E - Informed Consent ................................................................................................. 148 Appendix F - Human Subject Training Certificate ..................................................................... 151 Appendix G - Assurance of Principal Investigator ..................................................................... 152 4 Acknowledgment I would like to acknowledge all of the amazing people in my life who have played a vital role in my academic accomplishments. First and foremost, I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my family for seeing me through the doctoral process. To my husband, Chris, for his unwavering support, love, and encouragement. To my children Lillian and Deacon, who were very patient with me and sacrificed time without me so that I could complete this work. To my parents Linda and Ken, who offered constant encouragement and support, and to my sisters, Victoria and Jordan, who made sure Lillian and Deacon always felt loved. The completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the encouragement and organization of my dissertation coaches, Jessica Parker and Veronica Richard. Their tireless support and constructive feedback were critical. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the fantastic administrators I have worked with during my career, especially Dr. B, whom I have always wanted to emulate and who inspired me to undertake this doctoral journey. When I asked her how I could complete my doctorate and keep some semblance of a work-life balance, she assured me that it was possible and that I would find a way to do it. She was right, and she has never led me astray. Finally, I am tremendously fortunate to have had three wonderful committee members. Thank you to Dr. Kristal Clemons and Dr. Erica Sutula for the time you invested in my journey. Thank you to Dr. Hattie Hammonds, my chair, for your feedback and support in helping me achieve my dreams. 5 Abstract The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 digital program at an urban high school in the southeastern United States. Rogers’ (1962; 2010) Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory was used as the theoretical framework for this study. DOI as a framework provides a foundation for understanding how, why, and, at what rate, innovations spread among individuals and organizations, as well as what factors can aid or impede the adoption of innovation. The researcher utilized interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) as a way to interpret meaning from participants’ experiences. Data was collected via face-toface, semi-structured interviews. The data-analysis process led to the development of two superordinate themes. Both superordinate themes were supported by three subordinate themes. The first superordinate theme covers how 1:1 implementation presented unique possibilities. Within this central theme, three subordinate themes emerged: (a) unique possibilities of 1:1 implementation sparked principal’s vision; (b) unique possibilities for teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches; and (c) unique possibilities for students. The second superordinate theme involved the need for extensive teacher support structures. This theme included the following subordinate themes: (a) professional development structure was important to teacher learning; (b) the principal set the tone for a safe and supportive environment for teachers; and (c) changes to teachers' attitudes and feelings. The study revealed several implications for theory, research, policy, and practice. Keywords: 1:1 implementation, blended learning, principal, leadership, program implementation, digital device implementation, laptop program, one-to-one implementation 6 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study National funding for educational technology, which averaged over $12,000 per public school student during the 2010-2011 academic year (Koba, 2015), has made technology a prominent part of today’s educational landscape (J. L. Harris, Al-Bataineh, & Al-Bataineh, 2016). The introduction of technology in the classroom has sparked the development of new teaching pedagogy that is centered on the student and technology itself; a stark difference from the traditional teaching approach where students were required to “sit-and-get” from a “sage-onthe-stage.” Furthermore, teaching practices that use technology in the classroom are developing at the same the rate as changes in technology (Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003), and the question of whether educational technology improves student learning is no longer relevant (Weston & Bain, 2010). Rather, the effectiveness of educational technology, like any other classroom tool or teaching strategy, is dependent on how that particular tool is designed and how teachers and students implement it (Weston & Bain, 2010). 1:1 digital implementation, an educational technology program where students have access to a personal computing device at a ratio of one computing device to one student, is an innovative approach to academic learning that has been implemented in United States public schools in recent years (Varier et al., 2017). Research studies report numerous benefits to students when 1:1 is implemented successfully (Jin & Schmidt-Crawford, 2017; Keane & Keane, 2017; Storz & Hoffman, 2013; Varier et al., 2017); however, only about 65% of teachers report using 1:1 technology daily (Fenton, 2017; Weston & Bain, 2010). Exploring the experiences of stakeholders who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 digital program at a large, urban high school in the southeastern U.S. will provide additional insights about how school leaders and teachers approach the development and implementation of a 1:1 program. 7 This chapter begins with an overview of the background and context of the study, with evidence from the literature supporting prior studies on 1:1 digital implementation. The problem statement and significance of the study are discussed next, drawing connections to potential beneficiaries of the research, followed by the research questions. Finally, the theoretical framework that serves as a lens for the study is introduced and explained. Background of the Study Traditional learning environments have failed to prepare students for the 21st-century workplace, which demands the development of complex, higher-order competencies, such as enhanced collaboration, communication, creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, digital literacy, and self-directed learning (Varier et al., 2017). National educational initiatives, specifically No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, have increased states’ focus on improving student engagement and achievement, as well as preparing students for the 21stcentury working environment (J. L. Harris et al., 2016; Jin & Schmidt-Crawford, 2017; Keane & Keane, 2017; Stone, 2017; Zheng, Arada, Niiya, & Warschauer, 2014). As the cost and availability of educational technology have improved, schools are turning to 1:1 technology programs to accomplish these goals (Islam & Grönlund, 2016; Jin & Schmidt-Crawford, 2017). When implemented successfully, 1:1 has been found to adequately equip students with collaboration, communication, creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, digital literacy, and self-directed learning skills (Varier et al., 2017). Therefore, many schools have adopted 1:1 initiatives to enhance students’ learning and equip them with 21st-century skills (Varier et al., 2017). However, there are challenges associated with 1:1 implementation, primarily in the areas of inadequate teacher preparedness and poor leadership support (Keane & Keane, 2017). In a recent study by Keane & Keane (2016) of one school’s multi-year implementation of a 1:1 8 program, the authors found the lack of leadership to be a significant barrier to success. For this study, successful implementation is defined as a 1:1 program that is ongoing and has been sustained by teachers and administrators for more than three years. Fenton (2017) also noted that past studies had investigated barriers for teacher use of 1:1, and although many of the existing barriers have been appropriately addressed, more recent studies of 1:1 implementation continue to find that only about 65% of teachers are using technology daily (Fenton, 2017; Weston & Bain, 2010). Therefore, Fenton (2017) recommended further research to identify why some teachers do not adopt and implement 1:1 technology in the classroom. Problem Statement Despite the benefits associated with implementing a 1:1 digital program with students, not all teachers are maximizing student’s use of technology in the classroom (Fenton, 2017). Much of the literature on this topic has explored barriers and challenges at the school or district level, and the findings of some research studies on what factors predict if teachers will integrate technology have been conflicting (Fenton, 2017). Few studies have explored the experiences of stakeholders in the context of a successful and sustained 1:1 digital implementation initiative. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 digital program at an urban high school in the southeastern United States. Significance of the Study According to researchers and educational philosophers, the U.S. economy is in the midst of a fundamental, long-term transformation (Spires, Wiebe, Young, Hollebrands, & Lee, 2012). However, today's economy is shifting away from manufacturing to idea-driven creative industries (Spires et al., 2012). In order to prepare students for this shift and remain competitive 9 in a global economy, policymakers have enacted several national policy initiatives (Harris et al., 2016). One of the most famous and impactful national policy initiatives was No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB was enacted, in part, to eliminate the digital divide and have students technologically literate by the end of any grade level, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, geographic location, or disability (J. L. Harris et al., 2016). Individual states have voluntarily adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which took the ideals of NCLB one step further with children as young as kindergarten being expected to be computer literate (J. L. Harris et al., 2016). 1:1 digital programs have been implemented in schools across the U.S. as one strategy to accomplish the goals set forth by NCLB and CCSS (Molnar, 2015; Spires et al., 2012). It is estimated that at least half of K-12 students in the U.S. had access to a 1:1 computing device in the 2015-2016 academic year; this percentage is expected to increase annually at a rate of approximately 10 percent in the U.S. and 12 percent globally (Molnar, 2015). When implemented successfully, 1:1 allows: • teachers to provide personalized, differentiated learning environments (Storz & Hoffman, 2013); • enhanced student engagement, motivation, and ownership for learning (Grant, 2016); • increased opportunities for group and project-based learning (Storz & Hoffman, 2013); • enhanced opportunities for collaboration, within and outside of school (Keane & Keane, 2017); • an increase in parental involvement (Jin & Schmidt-Crawford, 2017); • access to primary source information (Storz & Hoffman, 2013); 10 • improved student workflow (Storz & Hoffman, 2013); • the minimization of traditional resources such as binders and textbooks (Keane & Keane, 2017); and • a level playing field for students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds (J. L. Harris et al., 2016). Despite research documenting the advantages and successes of 1:1 programs, not all programs have been successful (Keane & Keane, 2017). Several large U.S. school systems in Michigan, Maine, Pennsylvania, Texas, and California discontinued 1:1 programs due to lack of educational results or schools not meeting the goals of the program (Jin & Schmidt-Crawford, 2017; Snelling, 2018). The financial ramifications of such a failure are significant. The Los Angeles Unified School District invested $1.3 billion in their ill-fated 1:1 program, which was terminated (Cole & Sauers, 2018). The Maine Learning and Technology Initiative, one of the highest-profile 1:1 efforts and the first statewide 1:1 initiative in the U.S, cost nearly $120 million to implement (Weston & Bain, 2010). In the case of the Maine Learning and Technology Initiative, the program struggled with stagnant student achievement, and 35% of teachers reported not using their laptops for creating and providing instructions (Weston & Bain, 2010). Several adverse outcomes are associated with teachers' resistance or slow acceptance to adopt new practices or transform their practice by utilizing new technological tools. A few of these adverse outcomes include: • flat statewide test scores (Kazi, 2016); • decreased student engagement and motivation (Harris et al., 2016); • decreased quality of work and student achievement (Zheng, Warschauer, Lin, & Chang, 2016); 11 • less self-direct and independent learning opportunities (Zheng et al., 2016); • increased absenteeism and rates of discipline (Harris et al., 2016); • decreased standardized test scores (Islam & Grönlund, 2016). Further, research studies have demonstrated that in the absence of 1:1 devices, there is an overall decrease in opportunities for learning inside and outside of school, as these devices give access to web-based resources that allow for the critical development of 21st-century literacy skills (Cole & Sauers, 2018; Topper & Lancaster, 2013). Schools and districts that plan to invest and implement a 1:1 program will need to overcome these challenges and avoid the failure and associated financial costs of unsuccessful implementation. Although many of these challenges are detailed in the literature, most studies have explored challenges at the school or district level. Exploring the experiences of teachers and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 digital program could uncover meaningful information that can be used to develop targeted 1:1 training programs that can lead teachers to adopt new instructional practices. Research Questions The following research questions guided this qualitative study: RQ1: What are the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 initiative at a large, urban high school in the southeastern United States? The following research subquestions were included in this qualitative study: SQ1: What are the perceptions of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches of their preparedness to implement the 1:1 initiative? 12 SQ2: What are the perceptions of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches of the leadership support at their school to implement the 1:1 initiative? Definitions of Key Terminology 1:1: 1:1 is a specific education technology program where students have access to a personal computing device at a ratio of one computing device to one student for academic learning (Varier et al., 2017). Blended Learning: Blended learning is a formal education program in which a student learns, at least in part, through online learning with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace. Some portion of student learning takes place in a supervised brick-andmortar location away from home. Communication channels: A communication channel connects two individuals or groups that are on the receiving end of a particular type of communication wherein the message content from one individual that is being communicated to one or several others concerns a new idea (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Educational technology: Educational technologies enable student learning and are primarily used by students. Educational technologies most commonly class sets of laptops or iPads, but may also include graphing calculators, computer programs, simulation software, and student learning management systems such as Blackboard, Canvas, or Google Classroom (Hechter & Vermette, 2014). Innovation: An innovation includes an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or social group (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Instructional technology: The terms instructional technology and educational technology are often used synonymously, but they have significant differences. Instructional 13 technologies are used by teachers, generally, for the benefit of the teacher. Instructional technologies assist teachers in the presentation of information, monitoring and interacting with students, and communicating with parents, coworkers, and administrators (Hechter & Vermette, 2014). Examples of instructional technologies include digital whiteboards, document cameras, assessment and reporting software, and email. Social systems: A social system is defined as a set of interrelated units, including people, informal groups, or organizations that have been engaged in joint problem-solving, which binds the system together, to accomplish a common goal (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Time: In the context of the current study, the time dimension involves: A. the innovation-decision making process when individuals pass from initial knowledge of an innovation to its adoption or rejection; B. the innovativeness of an individual, especially how early or late the innovation is adopted compared to other members of the system; and C. the innovation’s rate of adoption in the system (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Theoretical Framework Rogers’ (1962, 2010) Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory was used as the theoretical framework for this study. DOI as a framework provides a foundation for understanding how, why, and, at what rate, innovations spread among individuals and organizations, as well as what factors can aid or impede the adoption of innovation (Rogers, 1962, 2010). DOI theory is based on the concept of diffusion, which was first studied in the 19th century, and later was applied to the spread of agricultural technology in the 1920s and 1930s. Diffusion is the process by which an innovation, or new knowledge, moves through a population or social system (Rogers, 1962, 2010; Rohrbach, Graham, & Hansen, 1993). Rogers (1962, 2010) was influenced by research 14 from over 500 diffusion studies across a wide variety of fields, which influenced his DOI theory. Rogers drew primarily from studies in the areas of anthropology, sociology, and education (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Rogers’ (1962, 2010) produced a theory of the adoption of innovations among individuals and organizations. His theory included four defining elements: (a) innovation, (b) communication channels, (c) time, and (d) social systems (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Innovation An innovation includes an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or social group (Rogers, 1962, 2010). According to Rogers (1962, 2010), the perceived newness of the idea for the individual determines his or her reaction to it; therefore, if the idea seems new to the individual, it is considered an innovation. Technology innovations pose an additional challenge to researchers because adopters of technology are seldom confident that the innovation represents a superior alternative to the previous practice it is replacing (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Communication Channels Diffusion is a particular type of communication wherein the message content from an individual that is being communicated to one or several others concerning a new idea (Rogers, 1962, 2010). At its most basic level, the process involves an innovation, an individual or group that has knowledge of the innovation or experience with using it, and another individual or group that does not have experience with the innovation. Between the two groups or individuals exists a communication channel connecting them. The communication of disruptive innovation is essential to the success of that innovation. Diffusion is a social process, as evidenced by the dependence on the experience of near-peers, which Rogers (1962, 2010) suggests is the heart of the diffusion process. This modeling and imitation by potential adopters of their network partners 15 who have previously adopted the innovation are what allow the technology to move through the social network (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Rogers (1962, 2010) believes it is essential that researchers investigate how the organization communicates the innovation (Rogers, 1962, 2010). DOI theory provides a foundation for understanding how individuals or a social group decide to accept, adopt, and use the innovation, which is not an instance act, but instead a process that occurs over time and includes five primary steps (Figure 1). These steps include the knowledge, the persuasion, the decision, the implementation, and the confirmation (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Figure 1. Inspired by Rogers (1962, 2010) communication channels, Figure 1 provides a foundation for understanding how individuals or a social group decide to accept, adopt, and use an innovation, which is not an instance act, but instead a process that occurs over time and includes five primary steps: the knowledge, the persuasion, the decision, the implementation, and the confirmation. 16 Time During the new information or idea stage, also known as the knowledge stage, the decision making unit of the organization is exposed to the innovation and learns how the innovation functions (Rogers, 1962, 2010). During persuasion, the decision-makers seek information about the innovation in order to gain knowledge, which is then used to form a general perception regarding the innovation. This is generally when school administrators explain the innovation to the school staff, and when the staff form attitudes towards the use of the innovation, and at the decision stage, they either make a commitment to or reject the initiation of the innovation (Rogers, 1962, 2010). The decision occurs when the individual engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation (Rogers, 1962, 2010). During the implementation stage, the innovation is put to use (Rogers, 1962, 2010), and school administrators, teachers, and instructional coaches implement the innovation (Rohrbach et al., 1993). The innovation-decision process can lead to two possible outcomes: confirmation or rejection. During confirmation, the school administrators and teachers seek reinforcement of the innovation-decision and are encouraged to continue the use of the innovation (Rohrbach et al., 1993), although the individual may reverse this previous decision if exposed to conflicting messages about the innovation, which leads to rejection (Rogers, 1962, 2010). As noted by Rohrback (1993), program adoption does not guarantee implementation; therefore, it is critical that systems for the diffusion of education innovations pay close attention to issues of implementation and maintenance if the long-term impact on students is to be achieved. The idea of time can also be applied to the innovativeness and adopter categories. Innovativeness is the degree to which an individual is relatively early in adopting new ideas 17 compared to other members in the system (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Adopter categories allow for the classification of members of a social system based on their innovativeness and are categorized into the innovator, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers, 1962, 2010). As the first to adopt new ideas in their system, innovators are active information seekers and can cope with high levels of uncertainty about an innovation (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Over time, the rate of the adoption follows an S-shaped curve, with more individuals adopting in each following time period, before leveling off, as fewer and fewer individuals remain who have not yet adopted the innovation (Rogers, 1962, 2010). The rate of adoption for innovations can vary from rapid to slow, which changes the slope of the S-curve (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Social Systems Rogers (1962, 2010) highlighted how the structure of a social system and a community could have an impact on the diffusion of innovations. Social systems are defined as a set of interrelated units, including people, informal groups, or organizations that have been engaged in joint problem-solving, which binds the system together, to accomplish a common goal (Rogers, 1962, 2010). Diffusion occurs within a social system with either information or formal social structure, which can facilitate or impede the diffusion innovation within the system (Rogers, 1962, 2010). DOI provides a framework of practical solutions for schools and districts considering the implementation of innovation in a “knowledge-utilization process” (Rogers, 2010, p. 99). Critics of the Theory Many concerns about DOI theory emerge from researchers such as Lyytinen and Damsgaard (2001), who focused on a perceived lack of understanding on Rogers’ part of all facets of the diffusion of complex technologies. There were specific concerns that complex IT 18 solutions are socially constructed and that Rogers' work does not entirely incorporate learningintensive artifacts, which can be adopted for many different reasons within volatile diffusion environments (Lyytinen & Damsgaard, 2001). Understanding the role of institutional regimes, focusing on the process and key players in the diffusion area, according to Lyytinen and Damsgaard (2001), necessitates the development of DOI theories at the site level using multiple levels of analysis. Rationale for Using DOI Theory Despite criticism of Rogers’ (1962, 2010) DOI theory, many researchers have continued to apply it across various industries and research areas, particularly in the field of education (Coleman-Prisco, 2016; Dillon, 2017; Kamau, 2014). In Rogers’ (1962, 2010) book Diffusion of Innovation, he expressed excitement about the possible contribution of DOI to the education setting. He identified the relative likelihood of educational organizations continuing to adopt educational innovations, and the impact of teachers and school administrators where innovationdecisions are the norm (Rogers, 1962, 2010). For this study, 1:1 implementation was considered to be an innovative teaching practice because it was recently applied at the research site under study and has disrupted the existing teaching pedagogy. Therefore, the DOI framework provides a foundation for understanding how stakeholders have embraced 1:1 implementation at various levels of the institution, and how the transformational vision of 1:1 was adopted through the study site, leading stakeholders to embrace and accept the 1:1 implementation. This study also examined the dimension of time as the school transitioned to 1:1, looking closely at the three elements of (1) innovation decision-making, (2) individual adoption, and (3) organizational adoption (Rogers, 2010, p. 20). The process of implementing and communicating the implementation of 1:1 aligns well with Roger’s (2010) DOI framework as it provides a 19 method of understanding the formal and informal processes that led to the successful and sustained implementation of 1:1 at the school level. Applying DOI Theory to this Study This study used Rogers' (1962, 2010) five-step innovation process to organize the research questions. An essential component of the interview questions for this study was to learn the initial perceptions of administrators and teachers relative to the advantages or disadvantages of integrating 1:1 technology into teaching and learning practices, their personal decisions relative to implementation, and what influenced their level of support of the 1:1 program. This study structured interview questions in a way that examined how communication channels influenced the perceptions of each stakeholder group and sought to identify the system norms and structures, as well as the influence of innovators and early adopters on the success of the program. Conclusion Policymakers, administrators, and teachers have identified 1:1 technology as one of the most effective ways to improve student engagement and achievement while preparing students for the 21st-century working environment (J. L. Harris et al., 2016; Jin & Schmidt-Crawford, 2017; Keane & Keane, 2017; Stone, 2017; Zheng et al., 2014). Research studies on 1:1 implementation have primarily focused on the school or district level and have revealed several potential solutions to common barriers and challenges, including the need for additional teacher professional development and enhanced leadership support (Fenton, 2017; Keane & Keane, 2017). What is lacking in the literature is an understanding of individual experiences when developing and implementing a 1:1 program in the context of successful and sustained implementation. DOI theory provided a lens for exploring how technological innovation spreads through the social systems of one school via communication channels over time, resulting in a 20 successful 1:1 implementation. Chapter 2 will discuss the evolution of technology integration in schools, and the literature surrounding the factors of effective technology integration in general before more precisely identifying the best practices and challenges surrounding the design and implementation of 1:1 in schools and districts. Chapter 2 will conclude with a discussion of the benefits of education technology, as identified in the literature. 21 Chapter 2: Literature Review The introduction of educational technology in the K-12 classroom has been the single most impactful tool for educators in the United States over the last 100 years. School districts across the United States have enacted one-to-one (1:1) programs with hopes of increasing student achievement and preparing students for the 21st-century working environment (Stone, 2017). 1:1 refers to a specific educational technology program where students have access to a personal computing device at a ratio of one computing device to one student, for the purpose of academic learning (Varier et al., 2017). 1:1 is also one form of blended learning because it employs a combination of face-to-face instruction and computer-mediated instruction (Wang, Han, & Yang, 2015). 1:1 programs are considered beneficial approaches for developing students’ 21st-century skills. However, despite unprecedented funding and access to technology, not all 1:1 programs are successful, and only about 65% of teachers report using 1:1 technology daily (Margolin et al., 2015). Researchers have identified various barriers and facilitators of successful 1:1 programs, but it remains unclear why some teachers do not adopt and implement 1:1 technology in the classroom. Through this literature review, I will analyze and describe the extant literature on 1:1 implementation, beginning with an overview of the history of educational technology and the policies that have contributed to the growth of 1:1. Next, I discuss the types of devices most commonly used in 1:1 environments, the factors associated with successful technology integration, as well as the factors associated with successful 1:1 implementation. I will conclude by providing the reported benefits of 1:1 and the focus of the current study. 22 21st-Century Skills Providing the opportunity for students to enhance their 21st-century skills is repeatedly identified as one of the primary reasons that schools and districts implement 1:1 programs (Dillon, 2017; Hechter & Vermette, 2014; Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, Barron, & Kemker, 2008; Spires et al., 2012; Stone, 2017; Thieman, 2008; Topper & Lancaster, 2013; Varier et al., 2017). However, 21st-century skills are often ill-defined, which can make it challenging for schools, districts, and states to assess student competency (DiCerbo, 2014). As a result, Brinkley and colleagues (2012) developed the KSAVE model to assess the effectiveness of 1:1 programs in developing student competency in 21st-century skills. Brinkley and colleagues (2012) surveyed governments and organizations around the world that have independently developed frameworks for 21st-century skills, as well as national curricula that include the four categories and ten 21st century skills (Figure 2). For each of the 21st-century skills, they analyzed the extent to which the identified frameworks provide measurable descriptions of the skill, considering the Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, Values, and Ethics aspects of each skill, which they call the KSAVE Model (Binkley et al., 2012). Figure 2. KSAVE Model (Brinkley et al., 2012) 23 Ways of Thinking The first category, ways of thinking, conceptualizes the act of thinking and emphasizes higher-order thinking skills, including focus and reflection (Binkley et al., 2012). Skills related to creativity and innovation require students to think and work creatively with others, as well as implement innovations including creating new and worthwhile ideas; being able to elaborate, refine, analyze and evaluate their own ideas; and develop innovative and creative ideas that have an impact and can be adopted (Binkley et al., 2012). Creativity is described as a “thinking skill” (Wegerif and Dawes, 2004) because it cannot be easily measured by objective assessments and is open-ended and subjective (Binkley et al., 2012). To foster creativity in the classroom, teachers must create an environment where students have open-ended goals and feel safe taking risks and experimenting with new ideas and ways of accomplishing those goals (Binkley et al., 2012). One avenue that can foster creativity in students is technology. Researchers demonstrated that technology that allows students to quickly and easily produce content resulted in fewer barriers to creativity (Binkley et al., 2012). Innovation is considered a companion skill to creativity. Where creativity is the ability to conceive new ways of accomplishing tasks, innovation can be thought of as the ability to “improve, advance, and implement new products and ideas” (Binkley, et al., 2012, p. 38). To facilitate innovation in the classroom, teachers should create an environment where students can effect some degree of change in classroom structure and rituals (Binkley et al., 2012). If creativity is conceiving of some beneficial change in the culture or structure of the classroom, then innovation is the ability to frame those ideas in such a way that they have the desired impact and can be implemented within the external constraints of the classroom structure (Binkley et al., 2012). 24 Learning to learn, or metacognition, is the logical extension of lower-level skills, like recall and drawing inferences (Binkley et al., 2012). A critical element of metacognition is the ability to differentiate terminal failure from obstacles that can be overcome (Binkley et al., 2012). Terminal failure is characterized as a flaw inherent in the process or product being tested that prevents the product from working as described. By contrast, obstacles can be thought of as characteristics that require adjustments for the experiment to function as planned (Binkley et al., 2012). Ways of Working The way people work in a professional context has changed significantly in the last decade due to a rise in remote work and telecommuting, which is enabled by better collaborative tools that facilitate sharing projects across time zones and cultures (Binkley et al., 2012). As professional work becomes global in scope, the skills needed for success require training in educational contexts (Binkley et al., 2012). There are established ways to measure proficiency in graphing, writing, reading, speaking, and listening (Binkley et al., 2012); however, there are new communication methods that have not been comprehensively measured (Binkley et al., 2012). For instance, PowerPoint presentations are nearly ubiquitous and require different skills than a written report or a verbal presentation, but those skills are infrequently evaluated in a student’s academic career (Binkley et al., 2012). The ultimate application of a student’s knowledge of communication is the ability to synthesize information from multiple sources in order to build a convincing argument to promote their viewpoints, either in oral or written form (Binkley et al., 2012). Collaboration goes hand in hand with communication in today’s society. The challenges with measuring collaboration in an educational context are the dual goals of any assessment 25 (Binkley et al., 2012). Ultimately, an academic assessment’s goal is to determine individual competency and assign individual credit (Binkley et al., 2012). In a collaborative task, the academic goal is to determine how much credit to assign to each member of the group (Binkley et al., 2012). However, in a professional context, the only measurement of success of the collaborative effort is the success of the final product (Binkley et al., 2012). The highest-order manifestation of collaborative skills is the ability to leverage everyone’s strengths in order to accomplish a common goal (Binkley et al., 2012). Tools for Working Like ways of working, tools for working have changed significantly due to advancements in workplace technology. Most of this change results from the sheer volume of additional information available worldwide (Binkley et al., 2012). The first fundamental change was in the digitization of existing information, which enabled its proliferation around the world. With the availability of authoritative information from established sources that could be easily accessed and manipulated, a critical skill is being able to identify trustworthy information and synthesize it into new forms (Binkley et al., 2012). Binkley and colleagues (2012) introduced the idea of the “round world” and “flattened world.” In a “round world,” information is downloaded and consumed by many individuals and generated by a few individuals and organizations. In a “flattened world,” information flows both ways, with any individual having the ability to generate information and share it worldwide. In a flattened world where content can come from anyone. Developing a healthy skepticism about data that is too good to be true is nearly as important as developing the ability to evaluate the credibility of information from unknown sources (Binkley et al., 2012). 26 More recently, transmission protocols have been established that allow anyone from anywhere to generate authoritative content (Binkley et al., 2012). Blogs, Wikipedia, and other collaboration tools have democratized the process of creating content in a way that is critical to flattening out the world (Binkley et al., 2012). In order to evaluate this new content, information literacy is a critical skill. Information literacy is the ability to evaluate sources, evidence, biases, and other elements of information from otherwise-unknown sources (Binkley et al., 2012). Information and communication technologies (ICT) Literacy can be defined as the ultimate application of information literacy (Binkley et al., 2012). Where information literacy is concerned with determining the validity and reliability of unknown source data, ICT literacy can be thought of as the ability to effectively “use technology as a tool to research, organize, evaluate, and communicate information” (Binkley et al., 2012, p. 50). ICT literacy necessitates an improved understanding of the ethical implications of technology usage. While the information economy has flattened out and contributions can be found in any culture, there are cultural assumptions that can affect both how information is presented by other researchers as well as how information is received by members of other cultures (Binkley et al., 2012). Living in the World With the interconnected nature of work and the economy, citizenship is also a competency that can contribute to or detract from student success (Binkley et al., 2012). Citizenship can be thought of as the ability to “interface effectively with institutions in the public domain” (Binkley et al., 2012, p. 2). In addition to civic engagement at a local or national level, citizenship can be thought of as the ability to take advantage of opportunities afforded by governments and other public institutions (Binkley et al., 2012). Citizenship is often thought of as a student’s relationship with a government or governments; it can also be thought of as the 27 ability to demonstrate solidarity with a group that the student identifies with (Binkley et al., 2012). The logical extension of teaching students the skills necessary to be contributing citizens is the need to teach students the necessary skills that foster success in life and career. Cultural and technical competencies foster these skills in students because they force practice in the core activities (Binkley et al., 2012). Adaptability to change, the ability to work independently and in groups, the ability to interact effectively with others, and the ability to set goals and manage resources can be thought of as the core competencies that comprise success in a 21st-century world (Binkley et al., 2012). If students master the skills and competencies that are necessary to live and work successfully in a 21st-century world, the final skill that they should learn is a sense of personal and social responsibility (Binkley et al., 2012). Personal and social responsibility includes cultural awareness and “the ability to maintain a [appropriate] degree of separation between the professional and personal spheres of life” (Binkley et al., 2012). As students learn that their experience is not always indicative of broader experiences across cultures, their automatic cultural assumptions about others should increase their willingness to compromise and challenge stereotypes (Binkley et al., 2012). Evolution of Technology Integration The evolution of technology integration in the classroom can be attributed to several factors, including advancements in access to technology, increased funding, and decreased technology costs. However, there is lack of consensus regarding the most effective types of technology to use in the classroom, leaving it up to schools and districts to make major financial and critical instructional decisions regarding which types of devices to use in their 1:1 program, 28 with sparse information about which device may be best for the needs of that individual institution. No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and similar national education initiatives have created an intense focus on increasing student achievement and engagement in the classroom (J. L. Harris et al., 2016). In an attempt to increase the number of students prepared for the 21stcentury working environment, the federal government has pressured states to increase the number of students that complete post-secondary educational programs (J. L. Harris et al., 2016; Jin & Schmidt-Crawford, 2017; Keane & Keane, 2017; Stone, 2017; Zheng et al., 2014). Furthermore, the focus on student achievement and engagement, and a desire to boost 21stcentury skills has led to investment in educational technologies, especially 1:1 programs, which are intended to boost students’ critical thinking, problem-solving, and technology-related skills (Stone, 2017). Colleges were the first educational institutions to invest in technology for student use (Higgins, Xiao, & Katsipataki, 2012). The University of Illinois provided computers to students in 1960, which enabled them to listen to recorded lectures and access course materials (Koba, 2015). By the 1980s, nearly every elementary and secondary public school in the country had access to computer technology (Koba, 2015). However, this technology was most often relegated to a dedicated computer lab (Picciano, Seaman, & Allan, 2010). The first 1:1 student laptop program was launched in 1989 at an independent girls’ school in Australia (Bebell & Kay, 2010). The program began during the 1989-1990 school year with 10-year-old girls in the fifth grade, and required parents to provide laptops for students (Johnstone, 2003). The high cost of the technology and infrastructure limitations delayed the rapid expansion of 1:1 adoption for at least twenty years (Islam & Gronlunch, 2016; Keane & Keane, 2016). 29 Increasing focus on student achievement and 21st-century skills, along with the decreasing cost of technology, improved performance of devices, and the ubiquitousness of wireless networking, has led to the implementation of 1:1 programs around the world (Islam & Gronlunch, 2016; Keane & Keane, 2016). The amount of money spent on technology is expected to grow (Skonnard, 2015), particularly as more schools and districts invest in 1:1 devices (Storz & Hoffman, 2013). During the 2010-2011 school year, spending per student averaged over $12,000 nationally (Koba, 2015). These spending trends indicate that technology is and will continue to be an essential part of the educational experience, not only in the United States but around the world. Researchers have estimated that over 14,000 schools in the United States are 1:1 (Islam & Grönlund, 2016) as school districts adopt educational goals that promote 21st-century skills (Varier et al., 2017). Islam & Gronlund (2016) identified three main reasons for the worldwide popularity of 1:1 programs: (a) the accessibility and affordability of information and communication technologies, (b) increasing demands for adaption to a networked and shared learning environment that allows access to information from anywhere at any time, and (c) the inclusion of ICT in the education development policy agenda of countries and states. As districts and schools continue to implement 1:1 programs, the need to provide administrators and teachers with support in the shift toward student-centered pedagogy has led to the creation of organizations like the International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE). ISTE is a nonprofit organization that serves more than 100,000 education stakeholders throughout the world through individual and organizational membership and support services 30 (About ISTE, n.d.). The National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS* S) was developed in 2007 by ISTE and revised in 2016 to include lesson and curriculum planning, help schools, districts, and states create technology plans and aid academic researchers in their work (About ISTE, n.d.). These standards serve as guidelines to help teachers effectively and meaningfully use technology with students to “promote active student learning and engagement in higher-order thinking as they use technology to increase productivity, solve problems, conduct research, and communicate with others” (Niederhauser et al., 2007, p. 485). The standards are updated regularly to keep pace with changing technologies. The NETS*S standards are designed to empower the student's voice and ensure that learning is a student-driven process, as demonstrated in figure 3, which outlines the updated 2016 ISTE Standards for Students. Empowered Learner Students are empowered to make their own decision about how to show competency in their personal learning goals. Digital Citizen Students understand the magnitude of operating in a digital world and can navigate the digital world safely and ethically. Knowledge Constructor Students can find digital resources to learn and create work products that are meaningful to themselves and others. Innovative Designer Students can imagine solutions and different forms of technology to identify and solve problems. Computational Thinker Students can use the power of technology to create strategies for solving problems and developing and testing solutions. Creative Communicator Students can communicate clearly and creatively express themselves through a variety of means. Global Collaborator Students can use technology to collaborate with others in teams, both locally and globally, to expand their perspectives and enhance their learning. Figure 3. Updated 2016 ISTE Standards for Students (ISTE Standards for Students, n.d.) Types of Devices While practically any web-enabled technological device can be used to implement 1:1, laptops, Chromebooks, and iPads have been reported as the preferred devices to use (Weston & Bain, 2010). iPads were one of the first devices used in a 1:1 environment. One of the first district-wide implementations of 1:1 was in the Los Angeles Unified School district in 2013; the 31 district spent $770 per device (Blume, 2013). Chromebooks offer greater affordability for school districts with a price of $200 per device, and like laptops, they are compatible with computerized state assessments (Zheng et al., 2016). However, tablets have been used to bridge the gap between iPads and laptops by providing lightweight, cost-effective access to technology that has features and capabilities comparable to more widely used laptops (Varier et al., 2017). There is a dearth of research that compares 1:1 devices. A comprehensive literature review by Harper and Milman (2016) included 47 1:1 empirical studies from 2004 to 2014. Thirty-five studies examined the use of laptops or notebooks, and 12 studies focused on tablets as the device used in a 1:1 program. A limited number of studies employed more than one type of device, and only one compared the application of the devices themselves (Harper & Milman, 2016). A study by Furio, Gonzalez-Gancedo, Juan, Segui, and Costa (2013) investigated the influence of the type of device on student achievement. The researchers designed and presented an educational game for elementary students using iPhones or a Tablet PC. Findings demonstrated that the type of device was not a statistically significant factor in student achievement, satisfaction, or engagement (Furió, González-Gancedo, Juan, Seguí, & Costa, 2013). However, the authors did discover that the larger screen size of the tablet PCs led to increased student engagement with the activity (Furió et al., 2013). Therefore, their findings highlighted the importance of screen size to maintain engagement with the content of the lesson (Harper & Milman, 2016). Varier et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive examination of six devices in 18 elementary, middle, and high school classrooms at a large, economically diverse, mid-Atlantic school district. The goal of the study was to understand teachers’ and students’ experiences related to 1:1 implementation with different devices, as well as to inform the long-term 32 investment in an appropriate technology device to meet the district’s strategical goals for 21stcentury learning. The six devices included in the study were the Dell laptop, iPad mini, Chromebook, Windows tablet, Kindle Fire, and Nexus7. Further evidence of the value of such a study is that the Kindle Fire and Nexus7 were not fully implemented due to compatibility issues with the district’s network. The school and district had a strong, existing integration of Google Docs and Edmodo in their learning culture, but neither was compatible with the Kindle Fire or Nexus7. This pilot study potentially saved the district millions of dollars by identifying barriers and eliminating these devices from consideration. The Windows Tablet was also not recommended for consideration by the teacher focus groups due to functionality, technical issues, and lack of compatibility with state testing platforms (Varier et al., 2017). The remaining three devices in the study were the Dell laptop, iPad mini, and Chromebook (Varier et al., 2017). The Google Chromebook received favorable recommendations from teachers due to its lightweight, easy access to Google Docs, and costeffectiveness. However, the teachers noted that it lacked some of the features of a traditional laptop, which was a drawback. The Dell Laptop was recommended by teachers who liked its familiarity, robust features, and ability to meet academic needs. The negatives for this laptop was its large size that would likely make it too heavy for elementary students. The iPad mini was lightweight, easy to use, and versatile; it was rated high for use with elementary-aged students, but there was a concern from teachers about its application for high school students due to technical issues accessing some websites and limits for more serious academic work. Ultimately, the researchers added to the knowledge base regarding various types of devices, their benefits, risks, and impact on teaching and learning at the elementary, middle, and high school levels (Varier et al., 2017). 33 Factors that Impact Effective Technology Integration Many factors of effective technology integration have been reported in the literature, including access to technology and support (Hohlfeld et al., 2008), teachers’ beliefs and attitudes, pedagogical content and technological knowledge (Kimmons & Hall, 2016), and ongoing professional development (Parks, Oliver, & Carson, 2016); however, there is not consensus on best practices for school and district implementing 1:1 programs. School and district incentives and policies can influence teachers by improving collegial relationships, decreasing class sizes, and enhancing technology self-efficacy (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). The primary goal of technology in the classroom is to increase student achievement. Therefore, technology must provide support to students as they learn, question, communicate, and problem-solve (Hechter & Vermette, 2014). Once teachers are familiar with the tools and programs they have been provided, then professional development for teachers in the area of technology should focus on advanced uses that will allow teachers to achieve full technology integration, not merely technology use (Sclater et al., 2006). Full technology integration suggests full-time, daily usage within lessons (Bauer & Kenton, 2005) Access to Technology and Support Access to technology, including technical and pedagogical support, are critical for the effective implementation of technology in the classroom, particularly in low socio-economic status (SES) schools (Hohlfeld et al., 2008; Stone, 2017). In 2008, Hohlfeld and colleagues used four years of statewide data related to school technology usage to examine whether low SES schools in Florida provide students with equitable resources and the support necessary to be ICT literate. The sample data included all public elementary and secondary schools from all of Florida’s school districts that participated in all four years of the Florida Innovates survey from 34 2003 to 2006. The survey, distributed by the Florida Department of Education, sought to gather information on how technology was integrated within schools across the state. The authors found it concerning that there was substantial inequality in the access students had to production software on student devices. This inequality was present at all school levels, with high SES schools having more access to the production software packages, and low SES students not having equal access. The production software packages were closely aligned to 21st-century readiness skills, so the result was that high SES schools had better access to the resources needed to prepare their students for the 21st-century workforce, further increasing the inequality between low SES and high SES schools (Hohlfeld et al., 2008). Additionally, Hohlfeld and his team were concerned about the amount of technology integration support available to schools, which benefited low SES schools at the elementary and middle school levels. The researchers believed this could indicate that low SES schools in Florida are working to improve technology integration by providing faculty and staff the support structures necessary for successful technology integration. Of more significant concern to Hohlfeld and his team were differences in how teachers and students used ICT for learning. High SES schools had a significantly higher percentage of teachers using software technology. Hohlfeld and colleagues (2008) identified the comfort with and use of technology by teachers as an essential prerequisite for students to use ICT. Hohlfeld and colleagues (2008) also recommended that schools and districts decrease the digital divide by focusing on building infrastructure, including the acquisition and maintenance of adequate hardware and software. Additionally, schools and districts should provide on-going technical support to ensure equitable access to all students. They recommended that ongoing professional development opportunities be provided to pre-service and current teachers to help 35 them develop ICT skills and learn to integrate those skills into their lessons effectively. Teachers should be provided time and access to computers both at school and at home. Third, schools need to build partnerships with families to build ICT skills for parents and children. In a 2016 study, Stone sought to identify the impact of technology exposure on high school students’ perceptions of a first-year 1:1 program Stone (2016) discovered that students did not have positive perceptions of the program. Stone (2016) also found increased use of the 1:1 laptops, coupled with a robust IT infrastructure and support, significantly predicted students’ perceived level of impact. Most students reported that the laptops were used in one to four classes per day on average, and teachers were using the devices in basic ways to replace traditional tasks. The teachers were resistant to the pedagogical paradigm shift necessary to transform instruction. Stone’s (2016) multivariate analyses indicated that the average number of classes where students used the 1:1 laptop significantly predicted student’s perceptions about the program, wherein- increased use led to more positive perceptions. Additionally, technical problems were found to impact student perceptions. While the 1:1 program in Stone’s study was in the initial stages of technology implementation, initial resistance to new pedagogical paradigms and inadequate, problematic IT supports limited student buy-in for the program. Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning, effective ways of teaching, positive technology attitudes, self-efficacy, and student-centered instruction strongly influence technology integration (Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013; Kimmons & Hall, 2016; Vongkulluksn, Xie, & Bowman, 2018). Vongkulluksn and colleagues (2018) surveyed 624 sixthto twelfth- grade teachers, and 20 administrators from 16 schools in the mid-western United States to determine the values teachers placed on integrating technology. They found that 36 teachers who believed technology would enhance their practice spent more time using technology in the classroom. They found that values were a stronger predictor of technology integration than teachers’ beliefs in their ability to use new technology. Kimmons and Hall (2016) surveyed over 150 pre-service and in-service teachers about their adoption of classroom technologies and found that regardless of teacher experience, participants placed a high value on recognizing the discernible impact and ease of implementation of technologies. Teachers make judgments about technology before they use it, and the value can be tied to either professional needs or student needs (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). For teachers to be willing to integrate 1:1 into their practice, they must understand and accept the value to themselves and their students (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). Teachers were primarily interested in understanding how technology can make their lives easier and help them achieve expected outcomes more efficiently. Transformative and large scale uses of technology were less of a factor for participating teachers. Kimmons and Hall (2016) concluded that teachers are driven by external requirements and the needs of their students. The teachers’ technology use, or lack thereof, did not appear to be a matter of resistance to innovation, but rather a recognition that they have a job to do that is defined by specific parameters. When teachers are considering which to use in their classroom, they prioritize those parameters, which is why they tend to be most concerned about a tool’s effectiveness and ease of use. Researchers have repeatedly identified teachers’ beliefs as a critical factor in technology integration (Kim et al., 2013; Kimmons & Hall, 2016). The challenge is changing teachers’ pedagogical beliefs in support of technology usage (Becker, 2000; Kim et al., 2013; Stone, 2017). Kim and colleagues (2013) suggest that changing adults’ beliefs is difficult, but allowing for experiences to challenge teachers’ current beliefs may lead to a change in teachers’ beliefs, 37 specifically in the context of collaboration among teachers. A cultural environment of teacher collaboration can encourage beliefs that support and encourage technology usage (Kim et al., 2013). Experience and continued exposure to educational technologies have a significant impact on teacher willingness and ability to enact a pedagogical shift in their teaching practices (Hohlfeld et al., 2008). Pedagogical Practice and Technological Knowledge Educational technology works best when paired with strong pedagogical practices that support student learning, and when teachers receive adequate training and support to implement technology-rich pedagogical practices (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). In the previously cited studies by Kimmons and Hall (2016) of pre-service and in-service teachers’ beliefs and values concerning technology integration and Vongkulluksn and colleagues (2018) study of the role of value on teachers’ beliefs for technology integration, both teams discussed the need to impact the pedagogical practice of teachers. Additionally, Hechter and Vermette (2014) sought to understand teacher pedagogical practices for integrating technology in K-12 science classrooms in Manitoba, Canada and found that teachers’ voice in professional development could allow for professional growth. Kimmons and Hall (2016) reported a lack of communication between administrators and teachers concerning the new technologies as one possible cause of the disconnect (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). Technology decisions are often made without the contribution of the teachers, which leads to frustration, teacher ineffectiveness, unnecessary training, and wasted technologies (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). As a result, schools and districts have hired technology integration specialists or technology coordinators to work with all stakeholders to improve technology integration (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). A school district in Quebec, Canada hired consultants to 38 conduct teacher focus groups in order to develop strategies for using educational technology in the classrooms that included teacher input (Sclater et al., 2006). Researchers have repeatedly reported a disconnect between technology professional development provided to teachers, and the pedagogical needs of teachers (Kimmons & Hall, 2016; Vongkulluksn et al., 2018). Hechter and Vermette (2014) found that teachers rarely have input into the types of professional development that would best support their use of instructional and educational technologies (Hechter & Vermette, 2014). Teacher voice in this process is critical and begins with teachers believing in the potential of technology to enhance students’ learning experience (Hechter & Vermette, 2014). The dialogue between teachers and administrators ensures that teachers have access to meaningful professional development that is aligned to the needs of both teachers and the district goals. Ongoing Professional Development Teachers are a critical factor in the success of 1:1 programs. Therefore, teacher training and preparation is a critical factor in successful 1:1 implementation (Keane & Keane, 2016). There are limitations to the current research on professional development for teachers, as most studies focus on either the acquisition of technology skills or pedagogy (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). Kimmons and Hall (2016) surveyed a group of preservice and in-service teachers to identify what values and beliefs were most impactful for teachers implementing new technologies in their professional practice. When looking at teacher adoption of classroom technologies, teachers need to understand the impact of the technology, and the ease of implementation. Kimmons and Hall (2016) found that teachers’ primary focus is themselves and how the technology will make their lives easier, as opposed to how the technology will impact student learning (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). 39 In order to foster authentic student learning experiences and increase student outcomes, professional development programs must focus on the real changes needed to adjust pedagogy to focus on students’ use of the technology (Moore, Robinson, Sheffield, & Phillips, 2017). In 2017, Moore and colleagues conducted a program evaluation of a professional development series focused on teaching in a blended learning environment. The program was specifically designed to model a blended learning experience combining synchronous and asynchronous activities such as weekly web conference meetings and forum posts. They found that highquality technology instruction is built using a flexible design process that is aligned to course stands, and supports differentiation, and student-to-student and student-to-teacher interactions (Moore et al., 2017). Parks and colleagues (2016) conducted a study on blended pedagogy in Southeastern United States middle and high schools. Their sample of secondary public school teachers showed an interesting paradigm wherein most teachers overestimate their proficiency in education technology ability with regard to blended instruction. In fact, only 17.2% of teachers who were surveyed were within the expected range for technology-enhanced pedagogy (Parks et al., 2016). Parks et al. (2016) determined that the majority of teachers are not prepared to implement educational technology successfully. The findings suggest that the usage of educational technology is socially desirable. However, teachers do not fully understand how to authentically implement technology usage in their classrooms (Parks et al., 2016). Educational technology has the potential to allow students to be at the center of the learning process. Therefore teachers need support in acquiring new instructional strategies in order to positively impact student achievement (Parks et al., 2016). 40 Professional development should be created to model good pedagogical practices through the appropriate use of education technology (Parks et al., 2016). Without appropriate professional development, teachers focus on content delivery rather than enhancing learning experiences (Parks et al., 2016). Many educators believe that educational technology related professional development are not relevant because they lack examples of best practices, and little individual, ongoing support (Parks et al., 2016). Studies repeatedly show that teachers and administrators perceive that they are not adequately prepared for the unique requirements needed to successfully implement classroom technology (Parks et al., 2016). Parks and colleagues (2016) concluded that there is a need for personalized professional development for teachers in blended environments so that teachers can build the competencies necessary for effective blended pedagogy (Parks et al., 2016). The researchers suggested modeling, which allows teachers to observe best practices, as a means to support teachers. Modeling is a proven technique to engaged teachers in sustained change and is critical to teacher comprehension of new pedagogical strategies (Parks et al., 2016). Hur, Cullen, and Brush (2010) also studied the impact of modeling on teachers’ professional growth by conducting an initial program evaluation of a pre-service teacher education program utilizing the Situated Technology Integration (SiTI) model, which was designed to help pre-service teachers improve their knowledge, skills, and understanding of technology integration. Figure 4 shows the SiTI model and how the critical components of concrete experiences, reflection, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), communities, and application allow educators to move towards the goal of technology integration in their classrooms. 41 Figure 4. Major elements and their relationships within the SiTI (Hur, Cullen, & Brush, 2010). Hur and colleagues (2010) found that partnering pre-service teachers with mentor teachers influences the pre-service teacher’s beliefs and values towards technology integration (Hur et al., 2010). Mentoring programs not only have the potential to impact school culture positively, but they also build self-efficacy skills for both the mentor and pre-service teachers (Hur et al., 2010). Forming a cooperative program where teachers help determine facets of the program increased teacher buy-in and participation in the initiative. However, providing teachers a safe and supportive working environment allows them to reflect on their pedagogy concerning technology integration, thereby creating the practical knowledge necessary to positively impact student achievement in a 1:1 classroom environment (Ehman et al., 2005). Furthermore, research indicates that the length of professional development programs is what differentiates effective from ineffective programs. Researchers found that yearlong programs work best (Ehman, Bonk, & Yamagata-Lynch, 2005) as professional development must be ongoing in order to elicit professional growth and increase the retention of the learned concepts (Polselli, 2002). Teachers need to become on-going learners rather than merely 42 acquiring limited skills in a single professional development session, especially since the technology field continuously experiences change (Mouza & Wong, 2009). Factors that Influence Successful 1:1 Implementation Over the past two decades, policymakers have instituted policies that focus on innovation and the best way to acquire 21st-century skills and tools; this has led to an increase in 1:1 programs across the country (Spires et al., 2012). Constant access to technology and information in the 1:1 setting has created a new learning ecology (Spires et al., 2012) that necessitates a change to administration, infrastructure, teacher skills, and professional development to promote student success (Keane & Keane, 2017; Sclater, Sicoly, Abrami, Wade, & Wade, 2006). Authentic technology integration using 1:1 requires pedagogical transformation, not just reworking existing course content (Shand & Glassett Farrelly, 2017). A digital worksheet is still a worksheet. Furthermore, research shows that most teachers are inclined to implement teacherled technology, such as using an interactive whiteboard to present a PowerPoint, but infrequently use student-led technology in teaching such as student presentations with student voice-overs (Hechter & Vermette, 2014; Moore-Hayes, 2011). A review of the literature around 1:1 implementation indicates several best practices and challenges surrounding the design and implementation of 1:1 in schools and districts. The following section will outline recommended administrative leadership supports such as communication and collaboration, school policies and procedures, and the establishment of IT infrastructure. Administrative Leadership Support Administrative leadership support in communication and collaboration with key stakeholders (Peterson & Scharber, 2017), school policies and procedures (Varier et al., 2017), 43 and establishing an adequate IT infrastructure (Peterson & Scharber, 2017) are needed for successful 1:1 implementation. Islam and Gronlund (2016) found that school and district leaders must establish clear visions and expectations for 1:1 program success (Islam & Grönlund, 2016). Additionally, they found that “a dynamic, visionary leadership is the cornerstone of a laptop program” (Islam & Gronlund, 2016, p.211). Administrators that have successful 1:1 programs are usually resilient, visionary leaders that encourage and support risk-taking (Islam & Gronlund, 2016). Stone (2016) conducted a study of a yearlong 1:1 laptop program evaluation in one Pennsylvania district and identified professional collaborative learning and mentoring to be critical to successful 1:1 implementation. 1:1 program implementation is a significant enterprise and requires a significant focus on professional development, including mentoring and support, focused on continuous and innovative learning (Stone, 2017). In order to increase teacher buy-in and positive student perceptions of the program, there must be a strong reason for the use of technology in the classroom, which supports a move away from existing classroom practices to embrace new student-driven pedagogical models (Stone, 2017). Principals must intentionally plan for these support structures by hiring the necessary personnel and providing time for this critical work to occur (Keane & Keane, 2017; Peterson & Scharber, 2017). Communication and collaboration. Clear and consistent communication by school leaders is essential because change brings about uncertainty from teachers and students; therefore, transparency and communication from administrators are needed (Peterson & Scharber, 2017; Stone, 2017). Parents, students, teachers, and community members should receive updates and provide feedback regularly, so policies and procedures can be modified to support implementation efforts (Stone, 2017). 44 Additionally, involving students allows administrators to gain valuable feedback about the successes and challenges of the 1:1 program (Peterson & Scharber, 2017). A study by Peterson and Scharber (2017) of one Midwestern school district’s 1:1 pilot program shared the district’s journey in designing, developing, and implementing this initiative. Students provided valuable feedback on a variety of issues, including district insurance requirements, internet issues, device capabilities, and rules and discipline procedures when 1:1 technology is involved. The student panels also revealed that content filters were too rigid, and students could not access some academic content. Principals were able to include students in the collaborative decisionmaking process, which helped promote a feeling of value and acceptance (Peterson & Scharber, 2017). School policies and procedures. Establishing and revising school policies and procedures is necessary when implementing a 1:1 program (Varier et al., 2017). Varier and colleagues (2017) scrutinized the implementation of six technology devices to understand teachers’ and students’ experiences. The six devices included in the study were the Dell laptop, iPad mini, Chromebook, Windows tablet, Kindle Fire, and Nexus7. The researchers found that policies regarding device usage, safety, and security of the network were critical for successful 1:1 implementation. Also, creating an Acceptable Use Policy that addresses discipline concerns with device usage is needed. Students noted that at times it was challenging to maintain focus in class because of the device; several described instances of browsing the internet and playing games instead of focusing on their work or the teacher during class (Varier et al., 2017). Varier and colleagues (2017) found that policies should address the safety and security of networks and devices, although care should be taken not to limit access to educational materials. Schools need to block inappropriate content, but teachers also need some level of control over 45 installing programs and accessing content, especially educational content on websites and within applications that may not usually be accessible within the district's network such as YouTube or Google Hangouts. While schools can expand their infrastructure to allow for connectivity on campus, school districts must outline policies regarding the potential lack of internet at home for students. Administrators should also have a plan in place for device maintenance, which becomes increasingly important as devices age and begin to break. There is a strong need for onsite technical support and maintenance and robust infrastructure, including sufficient internet connectivity and power supply (Islam & Gronlund, 2016). Establishing IT infrastructure. Districts should fund a strong IT infrastructure that starts with increased internet connectivity (Keane & Keane, 2017). A robust, stable IT infrastructure capable of supporting a 1:1 program is a key component of successful implementation; therefore, school districts should fund this requirement. (Cole & Sauers, 2018; Keane & Keane, 2017; Stone, 2017). The biggest hurdle for many 1:1 pilot programs is maintaining a reliable wireless Internet signal. Without this, many teachers and students experience frustrations because they cannot complete technology-based activities (Peterson & Scharber, 2017). When teachers and students can connect to the internet, many often experience being blocked or kicked off websites that are not educationally focused because of district-level Web filters (Peterson & Scharber, 2017). Researchers have repeatedly identified stable infrastructure as a prerequisite to successful 1:1 implementation. Without a robust technology infrastructure and efficient technical support, teacher confidence in the technology is diminished, and their use of 1:1 devices in the classroom will be negatively impacted (Keane & Keane, 2017). Teacher Buy-In 46 One of the significant challenges to implementing a 1:1 program is establishing teacher buy-in (Harris, 2005; Kim et al., 2013). Teachers play a fundamental role in the effective implementation of 1:1; thus the onus is on them to determine how devices are used daily (Harris, 2005). A pedagogical shift is needed to move instruction from teacher-centered to learnercentered (Harris, 2005). Teachers need support in implementing educational technology that supports standards-based lessons while addressing students’ diverse learning needs and abilities (Harris, 2005). Kim and colleagues (2013) conducted a study to investigate why teachers integrate instructional technology differently. They noted that teachers’ beliefs about learning with technology have rarely been observed. They suggested that one-time efforts to change teachers’ belief systems are unlikely to provide long-term, sustained change. What is needed is for school leaders to create a culture of teacher collaboration that encourages support of technology integration (Kim et al., 2013). The obstacle for many schools is not the number of computers they have but what teachers can do with them (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Teachers who have embraced technology see a shift in their role from leader or lecturer to being facilitator or guide that stimulates students’ learning (Sclater et al., 2006). Sclater and colleagues (2006) found that teachers who embraced 1:1 technology described their roles as “opening doors, pointing students in new directions, helping them understand and share knowledge, and helping students develop critical thinking skills and to work autonomously” (Sclater et al., 2006, P. 15). Dedicated Technology Integration Coordinator The need for a “point-person” or staff member devoted to supporting teachers in the implementation of 1:1 is repeatedly identified by researchers as key to successful 1:1 47 implementation (Keane & Keane, 2017; Peterson & Scharber, 2017). The ideal candidate for this role will understand the technological, pedagogical, and organizational goals of the organization (Peterson & Scharber, 2017). Peterson and Scharber (2017) conducted a study of one Midwestern district’s 1:1 high school pilot program. The district was committed to employing a full-time technology integration coordinator, which they called a Technology Integration Coach, in each high school that had the 1:1 program, which was a vital facet of the support they provided to teachers during the pilot. The technology integration coach had the following roles and responsibilities: • helped navigate the intricacies of rolling out the 1:1 pilot • was the point of contact for all parent questions regarding the program • oversaw program logistics • trained the teachers in the program in the pedagogical practices needed in the program • was a liaison between the school’s administration and the teacher committee • used the knowledge gained during the pilot to train the balance of the instructional staff during weekly professional development Peterson and Scharber (2017) concluded that a designated support person for 1:1 was necessary to support teachers in collaborative professional learning because, “it is difficult to imagine who would have completed all of these responsibilities if the technology integration coach was not a designated role within the school” (Peterson & Scharber, 2017, P. 66). Researchers have found that in 1:1 environments, there is a strong need for a dedicated technology integration coach to support the changing technology (Bauer & Kenton, 2005) and instructional (Keane & Keane, 2016) needs of the school. In Bauer & Kenton’s (2005) study of 48 30 “tech-savvy” teachers, Bauer and Kenton recommended that to reduce frustration, and support teacher buy-in, schools needed to identify a “tech-savvy” member of the administration team who could devote time to educational technology issues, also sometimes referred to as a techcoordinator. In some schools where funding for such positions may not be available, school librarians or media specialists may fulfill this role (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Keane & Keane (2016) conducted a mixed-method study of one secondary school’s implementation of 1:1 and suggested that school leaders provide dedicated instructional support personnel to help teachers focus, too. While principal leadership is essential, they found that it was the personnel who work more directly with teachers in the planning of teaching and learning activities with 1:1 devices whose leadership is critical to successful implementation (Keane & Keane, 2016). The Technology Integration Coordinator plays a crucial role in leading teacher teams in the implementation of 1:1 technology. Researchers Keane and Keane (2016) published a longitudinal study of one Australian secondary school’s approach toward implementing a 1:1 program, with a focus on teacher and student perceptions of a three-year 1:1 rollout process. A primary finding was the importance of a cohesive team approach with a strong department or grade-level leader in the role of a technology integration coach that coordinates the program. This finding stemmed from frequent reports by teachers of a heightened level of collaboration and team-teaching that resulted from collaborative professional learning in the first year of 1:1 implementation. In the first year of 1:1 implementation, organized group meetings were held, which allowed grade-level teams to collaborate with the support of the technology integration coordinator. During the second year of the rollout, the same professional development was provided to teachers; however, the 1:1 implementation for the second year was not as effective. The reason for the lack of effectiveness was explicitly attributed to a lack of leadership in the 49 form of a technology integration coordinator. In the previous year, the technology integration coordinator had organized grade-level group meetings, which allowed the first-year teachers to work and function as a team for successful 1:1 implementation. Without a technology integration coordinator in the second year, there was no coordinated leadership across grade levels to support the use of the 1:1 devices. This resulted in ineffective 1:1 implementation and teacher and student dissatisfaction with the program. As a result, Keane and Keane (2016) determined that the technology integration coordinator’s leadership was important, along with structures that allowed for focused, collaborative professional learning and planning among members of the team. Benefits of 1:1 implementation Support for personalized learning is a fundamental benefit when implementing a 1:1 program (Shand & Glassett Farrelly, 2017). 1:1 programs allow for the use of technology-based learning systems, such as MathNation and Khan Academy, that are adaptive learning programs created to increase student understanding of new concepts. When appropriately implemented, adaptive learning systems have successfully increased student achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Second, 1:1 technology allows teachers to collect data and monitor students’ understanding of what was taught almost immediately because of computer-based programs that provide instant feedback (Shirley & Irving, 2015; Varier et al., 2017). Shirley and Irving (2015) found that technology can provide feedback at a rate that would not have been possible 15-20 years ago. Teachers can provide immediate and formative feedback to students, and students can provide each other with formative feedback as documents can be shared easily in a 1:1 environment. 1:1 technology has facilitated an increase in the use of formative assessments as 50 more teachers have access to 1:1 technology, which allows for greater access to data, and consequently, differentiation in the classroom. In other words, 1:1 technology allows teachers to monitor a student’s level of understanding and alter instruction as a result. 1:1 programs also provide many benefits to students, including increased engagement, meaningful dialog with peers, and the ability to reflect on their learning, all of which have all been shown to improve student outcomes (Shirley & Irving, 2015). 1:1 has a positive impact on student outcomes and student engagement (Williams & Larwin, 2016). Student engagement has been expressed in terms such as “interest, on-task behavior, enjoyment, involvement, active participation, and motivation” (Williams & Larwin, 2016, P. 143). Researchers Spanos and Sofos (2015) examined a 1:1 laptop initiative in Greece and found that student enjoyment increased because of the freedom that laptops provided, such as collaborating with peers and not having to carry textbooks. They also found that students had higher motivation, increased interest in school, and were better organized. Varier and colleagues’ (2017) found that students’ efficiency and self-direction increased because they were able to submit assignments online, typing instead of writing papers, and complete homework during free time at school. Engagement occurs when students take responsibility for their learning, feel invested in learning tasks, and see the value of what they are learning as it relates to the real world. Teachers reported an increase in the percentage of students completing assignments after 1:1 implementation. 1:1 devices provided easy and continual access to learning as well as enhanced communication between students and teachers about schoolwork after school hours and encourage questions from students through email or messaging applications during class time (Varier et al., 2017). 51 Zheng and colleagues (2016) found that 1:1 programs helped improve teacher-student and home-school relationships (Zheng et al., 2016). Many teachers initially believed that computers would be a hindrance to teacher-student relationships by shifting the focus away from human interaction, but what teachers found was that laptops facilitated teacher-student communication and interaction through the use of email, Google Docs, and other communicative tools (Zheng et al., 2016). Laptops in the home also provided a foundation for increased parent involvement in their child’s schoolwork and homework (Zheng et al., 2016). Parents are more apt to pay attention to their child’s schoolwork, including assignments, grades, and attendance records in 1:1 environments (Zheng et al., 2016). There is a strong correlation between student engagement and academic achievement (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Williams & Larwin, 2016; Zheng et al., 2016). Kay (2010) scrutinized the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative (BWLI) pilot program, which provided 1:1 devices to all students and teachers across five public and private middle schools in Western Massachusetts. Teachers reported improved students’ interest/engagement in class, motivation, and the quality of work after the implementation. School leaders in those same schools were overwhelmingly positive about the impact of 1:1 on student outcomes. They unanimously reported that their students were “more willing to write second drafts when using a computer” (Bebell & Kay, 2010, P. 31). Lastly, all school leaders believed that 1:1 devices helped students grasp difficult concepts and create better work products, which positively impacted their students’ academic achievement (Bebell & Kay, 2010). Conclusion Enhancing 21st-century skills has been identified as one of the primary reasons most schools and districts enact 1:1 laptop initiatives (Dillon, 2017; Hechter & Vermette, 2014; 52 Hohlfeld et al., 2008; Spires et al., 2012; Stone, 2017; Thieman, 2008; Topper & Lancaster, 2013; Varier et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2016). National policy initiatives focused on increasing student achievement and engagement, as well as a policy focus on increasing 21st-century workforce preparedness, have contributed in the expansion of 1:1 programs (J. L. Harris et al., 2016; Jin & Schmidt-Crawford, 2017; Keane & Keane, 2017; Stone, 2017; Zheng et al., 2014). While many web-enabled technology devices can be used to implement 1:1, laptops, Chromebooks, and iPads have been the most commonly cited devices (Weston & Bain, 2010). There are many factors of effective technology integration, including access to technology and support (Hohlfeld et al., 2008), teachers’ beliefs and attitudes, pedagogical content and technological knowledge (Kimmons & Hall, 2016), and ongoing professional development (Parks et al., 2016). However, administrative leadership support has been identified as a critical component of successful 1:1 implementation (Keane & Keane, 2017; Stone, 2017). Administrators need to create a collaborative environment (Peterson & Scharber, 2017) with clear policies and procedures (Varier et al., 2017), and a robust IT infrastructure in order to have the teacher buy-in necessary to shift pedagogy in support of 1:1 programs (Zheng et al., 2016). Educational technology is only effective when teachers have adequate training, support, and access to the tools to successfully integrate technology into their instruction (Keane & Keane, 2017). Further study of successful 1:1 programs will provide insight and lessons learned to schools and districts wishing to implement 1:1 programs of their own. There is a critical void in existing research on 1:1 implementation. Despite research documenting the advantages and successes of 1:1 programs, there are numerous examples of small scale and large scale 1:1 implementations that have not been successful (Keane & Keane, 2017). One possible cause of the lack of success is teachers’ resistance or slow acceptance to 53 adopt new practices or transform their practice by correctly utilizing the 1:1 devices (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). The extant research on 1:1 is heavily focused on school and district-level challenges, while this research study provided guidance on individual teacher’s, administrator’s, and instructional coaches’ perspectives of 1:1. This study sought to identify the critical experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implement and sustained a 1:1 initiative, specifically their perceptions of their preparedness to implement the 1:1 initiative and the leadership support at their school to implement the 1:1 initiative. 54 Chapter 3: Research Methodology This qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences of stakeholders who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 digital program at a large, urban high school in the southeastern U.S. Using a qualitative methodology allowed for exploration and understanding of a program, as opposed to confirmation and explanation (Creswell, 2013). A qualitative approach allowed the researcher to explore the phenomenon in the context of individual experiences, building a rich description of the phenomenon (Creswell, 2013). A qualitative research methodology was useful for capturing rich descriptions of the experience of implementing and sustaining a 1:1 digital program, providing additional insights about how school leaders and teachers approach the development and implementation of 1:1 programs. Research Design Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is a qualitative research approach that is concerned with exploring how individuals make sense of life experiences, and how individuals derive meaning from their experiences (Larkin, Eatough, & Osborn, 2011; Smith et al., 2009). This approach was well suited to address the problem of practice under study because it “aims to provide detailed examinations of personal lived experience (Smith & Osborn, 2015). As the purpose of this study was to understand stakeholders’ perceptions of the implementation and sustained practice of the 1:1 program, a qualitative research method was appropriate. IPA was initially established in a paper published by Smith in 1996, wherein he argued for a better way to analyze psychological studies from the perspective of the subject (Tindall, 2009). IPA has grown rapidly since its emergence in 1996 and is growing in its application in areas outside of its initial application to health psychology (Wagstaff et al., 2014). IPA is rooted in the work of philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859-1938). IPA is based in phenomenology, 55 hermeneutics, and idiography (Tindall, 2009). Phenomenology involves understanding a phenomenon and how it can be explained through the experience of those who have lived through the phenomenon (Tindall, 2009). Hermeneutics are the rules of interpretation, which view the researcher’s perceptions as an important aspect of understanding the phenomenon (Tindall, 2009). Idiographic analysis focuses on individual reactions to a phenomenon as reference points of analysis, rather than looking for meaning in large groups (Tindall, 2009). Research Setting The study site is a large, urban high school in the southeastern U.S. that currently serves approximately 2,600 students and 170 faculty members, staff, and administrators. The school created a business and entrepreneurship magnet program during the 2010-2012 school year that served approximately 100 students. This “school-within-a-school” style program implemented a 1:1 program that used iPads, which provided two years of institutional knowledge and lessons which were later applied to the district-wide implementation of 1:1. A district-wide 1:1 laptop program began in 2013 as a pilot of 8,000 devices designed to discover if the district could increase student engagement and achievement through the use of 1:1 devices. Since its launch, the program has been popular with both students and teachers due to the use of digital textbooks, constant access to resources, and the ability for student collaboration, which has allowed the program to grow steadily. Equity in access was an important driver behind the 1:1 program. The district leaders hoped that continuous access to 1:1 devices, textbooks, and the learning management system would help the county close their achievement gaps. The district provides one-stop access to digital textbooks, instructional software, and carefully selected digital learning objects such as videos and simulations through a single sign-on system (SSO). 56 In Fall 2014, all teachers, staff, and administrators at the research site were issued a 1:1 device (Lenovo Thinkpad Yoga 11e), and students received their device in the Fall of 2015. The 1:1 program is considered to be successful and sustained because it has continued to be implemented at the study site for six years as of the date of this study. At the time of initial implementation, the student population of the school was approximately half male and female, and the race and ethnicity distribution was predominantly Black (50%) and Hispanic (39%). Approximately 90% of students were categorized as regular education students; 85% are nonEnglish Language Learners (ELLs), and close to 100% were eligible for free or reduced lunch. Participants Participants included teachers, instructional coaches, and administrators at a large, urban high school in the southeastern U.S. Participants in IPA studies should have experienced the phenomenon under study (Smith et al., 2009). Therefore, teachers, instructional coaches, and administrators who successfully implemented and sustained 1:1 at the study site were solicited to participate. Including five to eight faculty and administrators is an ideal sample size because of IPA’s concern with obtaining detailed accounts of each individual’s experience (Smith et al., 2009). Purposeful, rather than random, sampling is the most appropriate sampling method for IPA studies because of the requirement to enroll participants who have experience with the specific phenomenon under study (Smith et al., 2009). Purposeful sampling aims to identify cases that possess a great depth of information. Criterion-based sampling identifies participants based on specific criteria. In IPA studies, the researcher should endeavor to use a homogeneous sample that is representative of the population being studied, and for whom the research question is meaningful (Smith et al., 2009). In this case, the population under study 57 was faculty, instructional coaches, and administrators who had experience implementing 1:1 at the research site. The extent of homogeneity varies for IPA studies based on the particulars of the study. For this study, the primary selection criterion was whether the stakeholder had experience successfully implementing and sustaining 1:1 implementation at the study site. For the purposes of the proposed study, successful implementation is defined as a 1:1 program that is ongoing and has been sustained by teachers and administrators for more than three years. The secondary selection criteria required participants to have been employed at the study site during the 2014-2015 school year when training and on-boarding began. Additionally, teachers must have attended the weeklong summer professional development training and must have been employed for the entire 2015-2016 school year at the study site during the first year of implementation. The recruitment process included the following sequential steps: 1. Apply for IRB approval with the study school district. 2. Identify eligible participants 3. Once the district office approved the study, I sent a recruitment email to teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches that met the criteria. 4. Contact possible participants by email to schedule a screening call. 5. Conduct a brief screening call to confirm eligibility. 6. Schedule in-person interview for participants 7. Obtain informed consent 8. Conduct interviews that were sent to www.rev.com for transcription. 58 Sources of Data Data for this study was collected from in-depth interviews. According to Smith et al. (2009), in-depth interviews are a useful method of data collection for IPA studies because they encourage participants to share “rich, detailed, first-person account(s) of their experiences” (p. 56). During an in-depth interview, the researcher and participant can share information through an open dialog, characterized by the researcher primarily listening and the participant speaking freely. As opposed to a structured interview where the participant must choose from a proscribed list of answers for each question, a semi-structured interview format allows the participant to more freely express themselves (Smith et al., 2009; Smith & Osborn, 2007). Semi-structured interviews are characterized by a predetermined set of open-ended interview questions aimed to encourage participants to elaborate their experiences with the phenomena under study in their own words. In conducting the interview, the researcher should allow the participant’s answers to guide their questioning. The researcher stands a much better chance of building rapport and trust with the participant in a one-on-one interview, and the more personal nature of a one-on-one interview also allows the researcher to customize follow-up questions as necessary to probe for more meaning in the participant’s responses. In order to get the most meaningful possible responses, questions in IPA studies should be open-ended in order to prompt detailed accounts from the participant of the experience under investigation. Initial questioning should be aimed to build rapport and make the participant comfortable with the process and with the interviewer. More analytical, probing questions can be added as the interview progresses. In order to maximize efficiency, the interview should consist of six to 10 open-ended questions with appropriate prompts (Smith et al., 2009). For the purposes 59 of this study, interviews were conducted in a private location convenient to the participant and the interviewer. Trustworthiness This section describes the key elements that together serve to produce confidence in the research procedures and results of a qualitative study. These elements constitute the overarching concept of “trustworthiness.” Credibility. Credibility refers to how well the study’s findings accurately represent the experiences of participants for the sample under study. Credibility is a particular concern in qualitative studies and requires rigorous techniques and methods for gathering high-quality data that is carefully analyzed (Patton, 1999). In order to minimize this threat, I instituted member checking to increase the authenticity of the final manuscript by allowing participants to check the transcripts and the first set of themes. Additionally, researcher reflexivity refers to how the researcher observes the emergence of patterns in the data as it is assembled. The researcher should take a position on “reflective commentary,” which is a restatement of the researcher’s social position and a discussion of how the researcher’s biases and social position may affect the final analysis. Transferability. Transferability refers to the applicability of conclusions and analysis to related research, policy, and practice, as well as to other people or contexts. Transferability can be thought of as the measure of the study’s “generalizability;” it is a measure of whether the results and conclusions can be duplicated in similar practical applications in the future. The research depended heavily on background data to provide context to ensure that the project’s conclusions are transferable. Context allows future researchers to compare background phenomena to enable a more thorough initial review. As more background data is made available 60 to future researchers, they will be able to make more meaningful comparisons between data contexts. Data Collection and Management Following IRB approval, in-person semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers, instructional coaches, and administrators at a mutually agreeable meeting space. Interviews lasted for approximately 45 minutes and were audio-recorded using a digital recorder. Participants were reminded of the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, and the risks and benefits of the study before beginning the interview and recording their responses. I followed an interview protocol (Appendix A). The protocol contains a set of demographic type questions about the participant’s role in the organization and length of time within that role. Participants responded to open-ended questions designed to allow them an opportunity to explain their perceptions about the 1:1 program. I provided opportunities for a follow-up interview if needed for clarification of responses or at the request of a participant. I used a professional transcription service (Rev.Com) to transcript the audio files. Data Storage All files were encrypted and password-protected to ensure confidentiality and security. Audio files were saved to an encrypted, password-protected cloud storage account and on a local, password-protected computer only accessible to the student researcher. Pseudonyms were assigned to all participants to protect their identities. Hard copies of informed consent forms were locked in a file cabinet in my private home office. All data and associated documents will be permanently destroyed or deleted five years after completion of the study. 61 Data Analysis Procedures Data generated by this project will be analyzed using Smith and colleagues' (2009) sixstep process. During each interview, I will record notes and impressions. Following the interview, the notes will be expanded into a more formal report and reviewed for accuracy. The expanded notes will be used during the coding process to facilitate data interpretation. Smith and colleagues (2009) used an iterative and inductive cycle, where the analysis moves from a more particular level to a shared level, with a special emphasis on understanding the participant’s point of view. Step 1: Reading and Re-reading The recordings and transcripts generated during each interview are valuable artifacts of analysis, and they require a deliberate and purposeful read-through to move toward “active engagement with the data” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 82). Some transcripts may benefit from additional read-throughs in order to discover the deeper rhythms of the interview and to foster better engagement with the data generated by the interview subject. Step 2: Initial Noting The second step of data analysis requires a detailed review of the interview subject’s words, making notes in the margin of the transcript, with the primary goal of discovering the patterns of meaning in the subject’s words. Per Smith et al. (2009), the initial noting process can be thought of as a three-step process involving descriptive, linguistic, and conceptual commenting. Descriptive commenting involves making notes of the context of the subject’s recollection. Linguistic comments are comments about the specific language used by the participant and how their word choice might inform their experience. The final step is conceptual commenting or using overarching concepts to link abstract ideas throughout the interview 62 together to help uncover new patterns and deeper meaning. The initial noting can be accomplished by a line-by-line reading of the transcript of the interviewer, including highlighting important words and phrases and making marginal notes of anything that comes to mind while reading the transcript. Step 3: Developing Emergent Themes Completing the first two steps in the process will generate a large data set for further analysis. The job of the researcher now is to marry the notes and contextual analysis of the transcript of the interviews with the text of the interview itself in order to develop emergent themes. The first part of this process is to use the contextual notes to winnow non-meaningful data from the interview transcripts. The most effective way to reduce the volume of nonmeaningful data is to focus on a small section of the text, focusing on its essence. While doing so, it is important to keep in mind the larger context of the project, in order to more accurately stitch the data together to form a meaningful whole. According to Smith et al. (2009), this process is the beginning of a hermeneutic circle, because the “original whole of the interview becomes a set of parts as you conduct your analysis, but these then come together in another new hole at the end of the analysis in the write-up” (p. 91). Converting the interview notes into a larger theme is accomplished by identifying the essence of each comment and developing a theme that is representative of both the isolated text and of the larger interview. Developing themes requires interpretation on the researcher’s part because each theme is a synthesis of both the participant’s words and thoughts and the researcher’s interpretation of those words and thoughts. The final product of this step is chronological labeling of ideas reflecting the researcher’s understanding of the participant’s experience. 63 Step 4: Searching for Connections across Emergent Themes Following the development of themes, the next step in data analysis involves graphically depicting themes with a map or chart. The researcher may choose to sort themes chronologically by when they appear in the transcript, then perform a second-layer analysis and link them thematically. The ultimate goal of this analysis is to develop an abstraction or a polarization. Abstraction is a technique focusing on similarities in the themes presented in the transcript to develop a superordinate theme that marries patterns across a number of emergent themes. Polarization uses differences among themes to categorize and organize the themes appropriately. Step 5: Moving to the Next Case Before attempting to generalize from one case, it is important to repeat Steps 1 through 4 on at least one additional case to confirm patterns across cases. Smith et al. (2009) emphasize the importance of individual analysis of cases in order to prevent bias on the part of the researcher from coloring the research conclusions. Step 6: Looking for Patterns across Cases Once the researcher has completed an individual analysis of multiple cases, it is possible to look for patterns across cases. It may be possible to identify similar themes or experiences across cases by matching themes revealed in the transcript. It may also become necessary to combine or relabel themes once they are considered in the context of multiple cases. This metaanalysis may be facilitated by creating graphical representations of data as well. It may also be helpful to create a master list of all themes identified across all interviews in order to demonstrate how individual themes are embedded into and make up superordinate themes. The recurrence of themes can also be measured in order to determine prevalence and variation across multiple cases. 64 Ethical Considerations As this study involved human subjects, it was important that I maintain a high level of ethics throughout the process. I adhered to the Northeastern University IRB requirements in the protection of the participants engaged in the study. I reminded the participants that their involvement in the study was voluntary and that they could opt-out at any time. I carefully reviewed, in writing and orally, the purpose, scope, and potential risks and benefits of the study during the informed consent process prior to the semi-structured interview. I worked to minimize risks to participants and maximize benefits to participants and society. In order to maintain anonymity for all participants and protect them from any potential retaliation within their workplace, or any potential impact on their career, I used a pseudonym for the district, school, and the participants. To conduct a just, valid study, I used sampling procedures that are well-considered and administered fairly to include participants that represented a broad range of organizational members. To further protect participants, as previously stated, the audio for the interviews was recorded using a digital recorder, and the resulting file was saved to a password-protected cloud storage account as well as a local, password-protected computer. The files will be destroyed or deleted five years after completion of the study. I was a member of the faculty at the research site and was a teacher-leader in the business magnet program which implemented the first 1:1 iPad program in the district before I left the classroom in 2014 to lead the expanded 1:1 laptop program which now serves almost 3,000 students and staff members at a large urban high school. In this role, I developed and managed the weeklong digital pre-planning professional development program for all faculty and staff, with a focus on incorporating technology into pedagogy. In addition, I provided ad 65 hoc and structured professional development and support district-wide throughout the year to reinforce and further develop those ideas and techniques. Due to my close connections to the school under study, bracketing is necessary to mitigate the potentially damaging effects of preconceptions that may influence the findings of my research. To accurately and fairly understand a phenomenon under observation, phenomenological reduction, or bracketing out of the phenomenon is necessary to clear prior beliefs and assumptions (Larkin, Eatough, & Osborn, 2011). As seen in figure 5, bracketing allows the researcher to set aside preconceptions in order to avoid trying to fit findings into preconceptions (Tufford & Newman, 2010). In doing so, the researcher maintains objectivity and ensures the findings are a result of the data and not a result of the bias of the researcher. Figure 5. The role of bracketing in qualitative methodology. (Tufford & Newman, 2010) 66 Limitations The findings of this study are limited to the boundaries of this research, primarily the large, urban, Southeastern school district. The study included only one school site within the district, which encompasses 19 high schools, thus limiting the ability to transfer findings. In using the semi-structured interview approach, the research included key stakeholders from the implementation. As the study site is a high school, the results of the study may not be generalized to other grade levels or building configurations. Because this school falls within the boundaries of lowsocioeconomic status, with high student mobility, the results may not be generalized to districts or schools that differ in make-up. Summary Using an IPA research design and purposeful sampling of eight teachers, instructional coaches, and administrators, I collected in-depth interview data for use in this study. I outlined a carefully designed six step data analysis protocol and planned for the ethical considerations of the human participants. In chapter 4, I will identify themes and share the research findings. 67 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 1:1 digital programs have been implemented in schools across the country as a means to prepare students for a changing workforce. The purpose of this interpretive phenomenological analysis was to explore the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 digital program at an urban high school in the southeastern United States. The following research questions guided this qualitative study: RQ1: What are the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 initiative at a large, urban high school in the Southeast? SQ1: What are the perceptions of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches of their preparedness to implementemis the 1:1 initiative? SQ2: What are the perceptions of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches of the leadership support at their school to implement the 1:1 initiative? Participants included teachers, instructional coaches, and administrators at a large, urban high school in the southeastern U.S. who successfully implemented and sustained 1:1 at the study site. Five teachers, one instructional coach, and two administrators agreed to participate in the study and will hereinafter be referred to by the following pseudonyms: • Principal Anna • Assistant Principal Ben • Instructional Coach Jim • Math Teacher Jon • Science Teacher Connor • English Teacher Nick 68 • Social Studies Teacher Luke • Reading Teacher Beth All eight participants completed an interview, which lasted approximately 45 minutes. The conversations were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using Smith et al.’s (2009) six-step process, which includes: Step 1 - Reading and re-reading the transcripts Step 2 - Initial noting Step 3 - Developing emergent themes Step 4 - Searching for connections across emergent themes Step 5 - Moving to the next case Step 6 - Looking for patterns across cases. The study site is a large, urban high school, which operates within one of the largest school districts in the United States. The enrollment during the time of the study was approximately 2,600 students; an estimated 170 faculty, staff, and administrators served the school. The school has a long history as a Title I school and equity in access to textbooks, learning management systems was a significant motivating factor for the 1:1 initiative. Participants’ Backgrounds As shown in Table 4.1, the study participants had a variety of job experience both in terms of years teaching and roles within the school. The teacher-participants were purposefully chosen to represent the five primary content areas within the school. 69 Table 4.1 Participant Profile Name Role Anna Principal Ben Assistant Principal Jim Instructional Coach Jon Math Teacher Years of experience in current role at the time of implementation 13 years + 10 years as a classroom teacher 1 year + 8 years as a classroom teacher 10 years + 17 years as a classroom teacher 13 years Digital Curriculum Leadership Team Member No Yes Yes – Lead Member No Connor Science Teacher 3 years No Nick English Teacher 4 years Yes – Lead Member Luke Social Studies Teacher Reading Teacher 1 year Yes 12 years No Beth Principal Anna is a white female in her 50s; she has been an administrator for 13 years. Prior to becoming an administrator, she was a middle and high school business education teacher for 10 years. Principal Anna holds a doctorate in educational leadership as well as a master's in Business Administration. Principal Anna credits working as a business education teacher with her willingness to implement 1:1 at the study site, and her excitement stemmed from the possibility that 1:1 would transform her school. Assistant Principal Ben is a white male in his early 30s and was a new assistant principal at the time of the 1:1 implementation. Prior to becoming an administrator, he was a high school teacher for eight years. He started as a physical education teacher before becoming a math teacher. As an assistant principal, Ben primarily supervised the math department and was in charge of the 1:1 implementation. He shared the principal’s excitement in going to 1:1 and could envision how the program might transform the math classroom. 70 Instructional Coach Jim is a white male in his 50s. He was an English Language Arts teacher for 17 years before leaving the classroom to support teachers in various coaching roles. Jim, who has been in an instructional coach role for ten years, was instrumental in helping new teachers transition into the professional as the head of teacher induction at the high school. Jim provided ongoing coaching and support for existing teachers as well. Jim was a member of the study site’s Digital Curriculum Leadership Team; although he is not a digital native, he has a long history as an early adopter of various types of classroom and personal technologies. Math Teacher Jon is a white male in his 50s and has taught for 13 years. Math Teacher Jon was an English Language Arts teacher for one year before moving to the math classroom. He has been at the study site for the majority of his teaching career and is well-regarded within the department for his ability to impact student achievement. Math Teacher Jon had some trepidation about going 1:1 as he does not consider himself to be technologically savvy, and he was particularly concerned about the negative impact 1:1 might have in a classroom with a teacher who lacked technology literacy. Science Teacher Connor is a white male in his 20s. He was in his third year of teaching at the time of 1:1 implementation. His specific area of instruction was in agricultural science education. As a digital native, Connor was excited about how technology could extend learning opportunities for his students. English Teacher Nick is a white male in his 20s. He was in his fourth year of teaching at the time of 1:1 implementation. As a digital native, he was also excited about the prospect of bringing 1:1 technology into his classroom. English Teacher Nick was a lead member of the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team and attended conferences and trainings across the country 71 in 1:1 implementation and pedagogy. He presented at a national conference on the professional development provided to teachers at the study site during 1:1 implementation. Social Studies Teacher Luke is a white male in his 20s. He was in his first full year of teaching at the time of 1:1 implementation. He had completed a semester of student teaching and one-half year of teaching in the past. Social Studies Teacher Luke was also a member of the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team, and attended district level trainings, and helped provide peer support at the study site. He was an early adopter of classroom technology. He was also part of the 1:1 iPad pilot program at the study site, which occurred in the two years prior to the full 1:1 digital implementation. Lastly, Reading Teacher Beth is a white female in her 30s. She had 12 years of teaching prior to 1:1 implementation. Reading Teacher Beth was nervous about how 1:1 technology might influence her teaching style since she had 12 years of successful experience under her belt. However, she was willing to learn and adapt to the changing expectations, ultimately earning recognition from the governor of the state for her effectiveness in affecting student growth. Analysis of Themes The data-analysis process led to the identification of six common codes that stemmed from the experiences of the eight study participants. As shown in Table 4.2, the six codes were then categorized into groupings of similarity, and this process resulted in the development of two superordinate themes. Both superordinate themes were supported by three subordinate themes. The first superordinate theme covers how 1:1 implementation presented unique possibilities. Within this main theme, three subordinate themes emerged: (a) unique possibilities of 1:1 implementation sparked principal’s vision; (b) unique possibilities for teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches; and (c) unique possibilities for students. The second superordinate 72 theme involves the need for an extensive teacher support structure. This main theme includes the subordinate themes of (a) professional development structure was important to teacher learning, (b) the principal set the tone for a safe and supportive environment for teachers, and (c) changes to teachers' attitudes and feelings. Each of the superordinate and related subordinate findings are described in the following sections. Table 4.2: Superordinate and Subordinate Theme Summary Superordinate theme 1: 1:1 Implementation Presented Unique Possibilities 1.1 – Unique possibilities of 1:1 implementation sparked principal’s vision 1.2 – Unique possibilities for teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches 1.3 – Unique possibilities for students Superordinate theme 2: Extensive Teacher Support Structure 2.1 – Professional Development structure was important to teacher learning 2.2 – The principal set the tone for a safe and supportive environment for teachers 2.3 – Changes to teachers attitudes and feelings 1:1 Implementation Presented Unique Possibilities The first superordinate theme to emerge from the data concerned the unique possibilities that occurred during 1:1 implementation. There were three subordinate themes: Unique possibilities of 1:1 implementation sparked the principal’s vision will detail how the innovative pedagogy and the ability to address students in a 1:1 environment impacted the principal's vision. Unique possibilities for teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches will detail the possibilities of improved workflow, efficiency, creativity, planning, enjoyment, instruction, monitoring, and relationships that are impacted by 1:1 implementation. Unique possibilities for students will discuss the impact of 1:1 on student engagement, motivation, enjoyment, personal pride, and school pride. Unique possibilities of 1:1 implementation sparked principal’s vision. Principal Anna developed a clear vision for 1:1, which was influenced by the unique possibilities she believed existed in a 1:1 environment. Principal Anna understood that her vision for 1:1 had to support the 73 needs of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches, as well as students. She was excited and inspired by these possibilities to transform the learning and working environment at her school. The unique possibilities of 1:1 sparked her vision for how she should implement the 1:1 program at the study site. The principal identified two primary reasons for her excitement towards the 1:1 initiative: her past classroom experiences and her ability to address student needs. Principal Anna’s experience as a technology teacher before becoming a school leader led to her initial excitement. As a result of her classroom experience, Principal Anna saw the potential to change pedagogy in a way that would increase student achievement: It was something I had a background in as a former business teacher. I watched as computers were integrated into schools in the ‘90s. I thought that we could do a great job at the school for our students, but also change the way we were teaching to make more of an impact. The principal’s vision was also influenced by her awareness that the 1:1 initiative could help meet various student needs: I was excited about 1:1 because… you cannot really do Khan Academy and work through learning management systems on a phone. I talked about having a device where our kids could do their homework and practice, but also be familiar with the technology on which they were all tested. Principal Anna highlighted that a part of the unique possibilities were the “innovative things for our students that put the newest technology and the newest ways of learning in their hands.” A part of these unique possibilities was addressing challenges in student needs, specifically in a Title I environment: 74 Our kids needed so much. They needed to make up years of learning, and not having to wait on a lab or computer cart increased our ability to impact students. I was interested in that but also knew that it would be important for our school because we were trying to retain our high performing students as well as attract kids into our magnet. I wanted to be in one of the first cohorts to be able to be ahead of the game. The thought of meeting challenges using 1:1 implementation served as a main source of Principal Anna’s vision and excitement. Assistant Principal Ben conveyed that Principal Anna’s messaging around her vision for 1:1 on their campus resonated with him. Assistant Principal Ben remembered being called into her office and finding out that their school would be going 1:1 the next school year: She was excited about it. She said this was going to level the playing field for our low SES kids, which was the majority of our students. She felt strongly that this was going to help our kids perform better. I agree[d] with her. Instructional Coach Jim also shared Assistant Principal Ben’s feelings regarding Principal Anne’s contagious excitement: “It made me more excited to do it [1:1 implementation] because she obviously was excited about it herself, and her enthusiasm for it was catching.” Overall, the administrative participants were excited because the principal communicated a vision grounded in the unique possibilities that existed within a 1:1 environment that could be transformative for the high-needs student population. Unique possibilities for teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches. The unique possibilities of 1:1 extended to teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches. Principal Anna used the idea of leveraging technology to improve workflow and increase efficiency as foundational components to her vision for how 1:1 implementation would 75 transform the lives of teachers. She communicated about improving workflow and efficiency to generate buy-in among her staff. The unique possibilities for the study participants included increased enjoyment and creativity in teaching, improved instruction and monitoring, and improved administrator-teacher relationships. Improved workflow and efficiency. Teachers reported many unique possibilities that benefited them both personally and professionally, including the impact on time spent planning and creativity in lesson planning. Many teachers believed that although there was some frontloading of time required to set up digital lessons, 1:1 saved time in the end. English Teacher Nick shared that, “…what [1:1] technology has done is increase our efficiency.” Science Teacher Connor felt that 1:1 saved him time in planning lessons and allowed for greater flexibility: I am definitely more prepared to teach. My courses are done. I can reuse what I have here and build upon it versus having to start from scratch every year. I am constantly refining what I have done from years prior. It [1:1] allows for quick changes and even from period to period change. If I see something is not working, I can change it right away and not have to worry that I wasted 500 copies. Social Studies Teacher Luke also mentioned 1:1’s effect on efficiency and time: “This is going to make things more efficient for you. The most valuable resource that the teacher has… is their time. 1:1 provides you more instructional time without actually modifying your watch.” The benefits to teachers’ time extended beyond the classroom. English Teacher Nick felt that 1:1 streamlined his workflow and allowed for better organization: It used to be that you would have students write essays… you then have to organize those essays in a way that you can keep track of where they belong so that you can return them. Transporting those papers to and from school and keeping track of them was a big 76 process, wherein a digital space, that is all done for you. That organizational piece as a teacher is huge in a digital environment. The unique possibilities of increased efficiency was felt by the administrators and instructional coaches as well. Instructional Coach Jim felt that 1:1 made his work easier and more efficient: “We can share anything, anytime, anywhere. It is so much easier to work remotely… because everything is in Google Drive. We can do so many things so much faster and so much easier.” Increased enjoyment and creativity in teaching. Teacher participants reported increased enjoyment and creativity in teaching as unexpected consequences of 1:1 implementation. While Reading Teacher Beth reported that transitioning to 1:1 initially increased her workload, she believed that it made teaching more fun: You are going to have a little bit more work this year, but it is going to be fun work. It is going to be exploring new ways [to teach]… the second year, you will not have to work as hard… [1:1] is going to make your life a lot easier, especially when it comes to things like grading and monitoring. Teachers also appreciated the unique possibility to bring additional creativity into their lessons. Science Teacher Connor realized that, “…it definitely made me more creative and less dependent on textbooks and paper materials.” Reading Teacher Beth also shared that, “1:1 opened up a lot more opportunities for teachers to be creative and find different ways to impact their kids… and keep them engaged with me, to keep them focused, and to give them different types of practice opportunities.” Improved instruction and monitoring. A number of other participants shared similar beliefs regarding the unique pedagogical opportunities that were available to teachers and students in a 1:1 environment. Math Teacher Jon stated that 1:1 helped him receive and 77 disseminate data: “We can find out very quickly what’s going on and reteach or review the standards. It [1:1] helped me find out what the issues are [and helped me] to be able to make corrections.” Assistant Principal Ben realized that the data teachers were able to access in a 1:1 environment improved instruction by allowing teachers to make quick adjustments to their instruction based on data: 1:1 changed instruction. It allowed teachers and kids to know right away if they go it. Teachers do not have to wait to read the exit ticket while they are at home to find out that a student did not get it. You can see it on the screen, and the teacher can make adjustments immediately. It allows you to process data and information faster and make better decisions for your kids. Reading Teacher Beth also appreciated the ability to better monitor student understanding: “There are so many ways to monitor kids with 1:1. It is not just sitting there doing formative and summative assessments. You can monitor [students] hundreds of different ways.” The unique possibilities of 1:1 shared by these participants extend from better monitoring and include the ability to differentiate using 1:1 technology based on increased monitoring. Social Studies Teacher Luke found the ability to differentiate especially helpful: “Instead of a teacher having to actively differentiate or plan 10 different lessons for 10 different learners, we have tools to do that for you, which is great.” Assistant Principal Ben concurred: “In a room where [1:1] was implemented effectively, it gave students choice, and it gave teachers the ability to differentiate more. Kids had the opportunity to express their knowledge in different modalities or formats. Pairing technology with great instructional strategies is what gives 1:1 the most bang for your buck and really helps kids.” 78 Administrators and teachers both reported that relationships improved as a result of 1:1. Assistant Principal Ben saw administrators and teachers grow closer while working through the journey of going 1:1: It brought administrators off their pedestal, which was good. I saw teachers and administrators grow closer. When you are facing adversity and challenges together, it changes your role. You are looking at teaching strategies and how to implement these amazing 1:1 tools inside of those strategies. Unique Possibilities for Students. Beyond the administrators and teachers, participants believed that unique possibilities of 1:1 implementation existed for students. Nearly all participants identified five unique possibilities for students: improved engagement and motivation, improved enjoyment, improved classroom experience, improved student achievement, improved personal pride and school pride, and improved student achievement. Improved engagement and motivation. Principal Anna identified improved student engagement as one unique possibility of 1:1. “I think the power is increasing student learning, engagement, and being able to differentiate instruction through quality materials was a big draw.” Science Teacher Connor felt that the unique possibilities of 1:1 allowed him to create engaging lessons for his students: I do not do any stupid worksheets. I try to make it engaging by incorporating different activities on the computer. Sometimes notes, sometimes just scouring the web for answers, sometimes activities like cool online labs. It is constantly changing. I think 1:1 definitely increased the engagement compared to just reading out of a textbook and filling in answers on a worksheet. 79 Reading Teacher Beth felt that the 1:1 devices engaged students in different modalities of learning: “For those tactile learners, they were touching, feeling, literally dragging something on a screen. For the kinesthetic learners, they were getting up, moving around… It brought a reading class from a book to life.” Assistant Principal Ben said, “It puts our kids in a better position to express their learning in multiple ways.” Science Teacher Connor said that the 1:1 initiative allowed for student engagement by creating and exploring new ways of learning that would not have otherwise been possible: “We were able to do things like virtual field trips. I also had students make virtual field trips instead of a boring presentation. It allow[ed] for that engagement piece.” Improved enjoyment. The unique possibilities of 1:1 include increased student enjoyment in learning experiences as Reading Teacher Beth noted: “Everything was new to the kids. It made them interact more. It allowed me to entertain them more… it is actually probably one of the more fun years that I ever taught.” Not only did the 1:1 initiative make learning fun for students; teachers shared this feeling, too. Social Studies Teacher Luke concurred with these feelings: How do I define success at a 1:1 school? The same way to find success at a school that kids are happy, the kids want to be there, and teachers are happy and want to be there. That when I walk into a room, it feels positive… but most importantly, that the kids are having fun with what they are learning. In a high needs, Title I school, having students regularly attend school is on the minds of many teachers and administrators. Assistant Principal Ben said, “Do your kids want to come to school? Does it increase kids wanting to be here? Does it keep kids engaged? The goal is that our 80 kids are more engaged [in school] than they were previously.” The initiative helped with student attendance and engagement which also increased student productivity. Based on administrators’, teachers’, and instructional coaches’ shared experiences, 1:1 implementation provides students unique possibilities to engage and enjoy school more than they might have otherwise. Reading Teacher Beth said, “When a kid does not skip your class every day; when they want to come to class; when the kids want to be there, and the kids smile, that is success in 1:1.” Science Teacher Connor also felt that fun was key: “Success is the students learning and having fun.” It was evident throughout the experiences of the participants that they had fun with 1:1 implementation, and they worked to make 1:1 fun for their students, with the belief that students who are learning and having fun may reap other unique benefits from the 1:1 environment. Improved pride in self and school. The 1:1 devices improved students’ pride and feelings of responsibility. Principal Anna recognized the positive impact on student climate and culture as one of the unique possibilities of 1:1 implementation, specifically student pride: I felt like because we were one of the first [schools in the district to go 1:1], it gave the kids some pride that they had their laptop, and they felt like they were a true student…. it just created a more of a true academic environment. I think the kids felt like they were like middle community college students. Reading Teacher Beth realized an impact from 1:1 on her student’s self-pride: “With low achieving students, it gave them more responsibility that they had to keep up with their computer.” Instructional Coach Jim felt that the initial novelty of having the device increased student pride: “It made the students feel special, especially in a Title I environment, they were being provided this device, and the energy at the school was that things were moving in a 81 positive direction.” Instructional Coach Jim felt the improvement in self-pride and school pride was especially significant for the low-SES student population and what they were used to: When you consider our population and what they are used to, not having to have something like this - it made them feel special. It made them feel like they were in a school that was really going places and doing great things… I think it just spoke to our students in a way that made them feel like they mattered. They were not the poor, redheaded stepchild, so to speak, getting the broken down Commodore computers that nobody uses anymore… They were getting top of the line, brand new, all the bells and whistles [laptops]. I think that that really did a lot for how they felt about themselves as students in this district. The students felt special that they were being recognized, and the participants discerned that the equity in access changed student attitudes and improved school and personal pride. Improved Student Achievement. The 1:1 program improved student achievement at the student level by giving teachers and administrators access to the exact information students needed to be successful. Math Teacher Jon recounted how 1:1 devices allowed English Language Learners (ELLs) to get support in their native language: I like that it seems like everybody can get help. I have so many kids that do not speak English in my class. When they can sit there, and you give them the problems, and it has the text in Spanish, for example, in the software, I said, ‘wow, they are learning in their home language, and they are learning the math.’ Assistant Principal Ben also saw the unique possibility that 1:1 provided for quiet students: “I love that it gave a voice to the quiet ones… not every kid is going to raise their hand 82 in the room, but every kid can still answer.” One of the unique possibilities in a 1:1 environment was the ability to support English Language Learners. 1:1 benefitted both ELL and traditional students through the ability to access adaptive programs and receive real-time feedback. Math Teacher Jon explained that 1:1 supported students with immediate feedback: Instead of doing 25 questions incorrectly and not finding out, they know immediately what they did wrong. If they are still stuck, they can watch a video or can come to tutoring, but they know immediately if they're in trouble, and they have resources to get out of trouble. The administrators, teachers, and instructional coach believed there was immense value in a 1:1 environment for students to have access to adaptive software that gives immediate feedback and support. These programs also had the ability to provide students with meaningful work tailored to their specific needs. Math Teacher Jon said, “I saw the value in the software where the kids could find immediate feedback.” Assistant Principal Ben was also excited about the unique possibility to accelerate student learning through the use of adaptive software: “Students are getting feedback on their math problems without the teacher being there.” Principal Anna felt the 1:1 program was successful because it influenced student achievement by helping students meet state graduation requirements: Kids had access to materials and devices that they probably would not have had in the past. Who knows if that contributed to their success with increasing the graduation rate, but for the graduation rate to be in the forties less than 10 years ago and to be in the 90s now says something… It gave us the opportunity to use the digital resources and all of our extra learning tools that we have for them to improve their success and ultimately get 83 the scores they need for graduation or college acceptance, which they might not have had that before 1:1. The participants contended that exposure to technology could be one reason for an increase in student achievement. As Assistant Principal Ben explained, this exposure could have been helpful for the navigating the state’s online testing platform: In this state, all of our state exams are online. From that perspective, students in a 1:1 environment are more familiar with a computer than they used to be. They are used to doing math and English problems online. I believe there is value in that. The ability to prepare students for state testing would not otherwise exist in a traditional classroom. Instructional Coach Jim further identified ways in which 1:1 exposure might have contributed to student achievement and graduation rates: I think many kids actually graduated because they were able to use their devices to get to Khan Academy, which helped so many of them graduate… When you look at how they prepared to take the SAT, how they prepared to take the Postsecondary Education Readiness Test, the ACT… They used those tools that were available to them on their 1:1 devices. According to study participants, the 1:1 initiative was influential in increased graduation rates, which in part, because of the resources available on the 1:1 devices that allowed them to meet state graduation requirements. While this study cannot prove causation between 1:1 and increased graduation rates at the study site, teachers spoke of specific areas of improved student achievement. Reading Teacher Beth spoke about standardized test improvements: 84 I saw a huge jump in my students’ overall gains when it came to retaking the state assessment because I had 10th graders that year who had to retake the state assessment, and they were fantastic. Those are my highest gains ever. I do not know if it was because I was a new teacher to them, but I can tell you that my gains that year were off the charts, and that was probably my highest year of gains ever in 13 years. Reading Teacher Beth further elaborated on the continuation of student learning even when students were absent: It allows kids that get put in alternative classrooms, or are on an extended family trip, or get sick, to continue learning. Everything is still digital, and you can communicate with the child better so they do not fall behind. Conclusion. The principal created a vision for 1:1 that was inspired by her own experience as a technology teacher. She realized the possibilities to address students’ needs in a low-SES were significantly improved in a 1:1 environment; this led to her excitement for the initiative. Principal Anna promoted messages about increased efficiency and improved workflow to build support and buy-in from teachers and staff for the 1:1 program. The teacher-participants and instructional coach realized the improved workflow and efficiency as benefits, as well as increased enjoyment and creativity in teaching, improvement in their pedagogy and student monitoring, and improved administrators-teacher relationships as unique possibilities they experienced during 1:1 implementation. The participants also perceived unique possibilities for students, including improved engagement and motivation, improved enjoyment in school, improved pride in themselves and school, and improved student achievement. 85 Extensive Teacher Support Structure The second superordinate theme to emerge from the data concerned the participants’ beliefs that an extensive teacher support structure was pivotal to the success of 1:1 implementation at the study site. There were three subordinate themes. The first subordinate theme, professional development structure was important to teacher learning, discusses the impact of time and professional development on 1:1 implementation. The second subordinate theme is the principal provided a safe and supportive environment for teachers using clear messaging, the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team, the digital coach, and the gradual release of technology. The final subordinate theme, changes to teachers’ attitudes and feelings, will discuss how encouragement for implementation changed teachers’ attitudes throughout the implementation process. Professional development structure was important for teacher learning. According to participants, there were many lessons to learn about professional development structures during 1:1 implementation. Some of the lessons included the significance of the inaugural year for planning, holding blended learning camps, providing pedagogical professional development, and following up professional development in the future to prevent knowledge regression. Inaugural year for planning. Nearly a year before students received their 1:1 digital device, every teacher on campus received one. The rationale for this action was that school sites needed a year of planning to train teachers and set up structures for support. Social Studies Teacher Luke noted the importance of this time: “The year prior is going to set the tone for year one. A rollout of this magnitude changes everything about the school.” Study participants reflected on the importance of this time to prepare. The year of planning was specifically mentioned by both veteran teachers in this study as one of the critical factors in their willingness 86 to implement 1:1 technology in the classroom. Math Teacher Jon revealed that he was hesitant about implementation at first, but the year of planning gave him time to learn and grow in his comfort level: I practiced with it. I talked to my instructional coach to find out about these things: what type of software, how does it work, how is this used? I would give myself time to practice with it because the more practice I get with something, the better my comfort level. I would schedule time to go over things and ask questions and practice. Math Teacher Jon also shared that as a veteran teacher and technology novice, he practiced extensively to ensure he felt comfortable with the technology and knew how to implement it in the classroom successfully. He recommended that teachers new to 1:1 implementation environments do the same. Reading Teacher Beth had a similar experience: We were not blindsided by [1:1] when it came… I became more and more comfortable as we went on. Like month one, I was like, ‘Oh no,’ month two was like, ‘Ooh, that would be cool. In the classroom, I was thinking ahead like, ‘Ooh, I could do this on the computer’ or ‘wouldn't this lesson be really fun on the computer instead of just me talking?’ That whole year, we would get a little information and learn what we could do with the technology. The structure of the professional development within the planning year allowed teachers to take lessons that were in the view the lessons they were currently teaching without 1:1 technology with the context of how they might look the following year with 1:1 technology available. The year of planning also gave digital natives the opportunity to grow in their practice and take their teaching to the next level. Science Teacher Connor said the year of planning was helpful in providing “enrichment for teachers like me to go to the next level.” The structure of 87 the professional development, specifically the year of planning, was important in setting the tone for the entire 1:1 implementation and provided teachers, especially veteran teachers, the opportunity to increase their competence and confidence with the technology. Blended Learning Camp. During the summer before students received their devices, the entire faculty was invited to a weeklong professional development event that was designed and presented by the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team. The district office provided materials and topics for the training, but the school-based Digital Curriculum Leadership Team quickly realized that a different approach would be needed to get the desired buy-in and outcomes from teachers. English Teacher Nick explained how the school-based team’s ownership over the blended learning camp added up to successful trainings at the study site: We attended trainings at the district, and then we started coming up with our own professional developments that supported those initiatives. We attended the International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) conference to supplement our understanding of the rollout process and how to support teachers in the initiative. I think that our school specifically was a little bit more successful than your typical school in our district because of that ownership from our site here. According to participants, the training format was important to the study site’s success. According to Assistant Principal Ben, the PD structure fit the unique needs of the school: I remember talking to other schools that had horror stories of when they had 170 teachers sitting in a cafeteria on their devices going through slides provided by the district that had not been altered at all… I really believe what was different was the initial training. It was important to make it fit for our school. 88 According to Instructional Coach Jim, the PD covered what their teachers actually needed because it modeled good pedagogy while utilizing adult learning theory to provide teachers selfpaced PD that they enjoyed and responded to well: We said, ‘this isn't working for us.’ I think that it was a nod to our team and our instructional expertise that we were able to see that the trainings provided by the district were not going to work for us. We did a week-long training, and there was one school that had to do their training the very next week, and we were like panicking for them thinking, how are they going to do this? Because we knew that our teachers were not going to sit still for like four days of PowerPoints and hand-holding. The Digital Curriculum Leadership Team recognized a need to differentiate district trainings for specific needs within the school community. Jim noted the positive feedback on PD sessions as evidence of success: When English Teacher Nick and our digital coach put the summer PD together, they tried to think of everything, and that came out in the feedback. I remember looking at the feedback, and everybody talked about how well organized it was and how helpful little things [were], like the videos that English Teacher Nick would pop into a hyper-doc. Because it was hands-on, you had to use the tool to go through the module, and I think that they liked the fact that it was self-paced, and there was a lot of choice in it. We used a lot of those tenants of adult learning theory and, just good pedagogy in general. That was a great model for a lot of the teachers that they saw how they could use the PD as a model for their own classroom. Assistant Principal Ben believed that feedback on the PD was positive because trainings were structured in a way that respected teacher’s professionalism: 89 I thought our digital coach created a wonderful initial training system. Our blended learning camp week was great because the teachers could learn at their own pace. It was different from the PD they were used to getting. I remember when the team leads called me from Denver at the ISTE Conference, and we talked about the idea of making the summer PD feel more like a conference where teachers had professional latitude and choice. We gave them freedom. We said, ‘this is what has got to be done. Go be professionals and get it done.’ I really feel like that was an important aspect of it. Teachers at the study site were diverse in their readiness and ability to implement 1:1, so the summer PD’s focus on strategies and a self-paced format received high praise from most participants. The Digital Curriculum Leadership Team provided a “campfire structure” for the summer professional development sessions, which they called “Blended Learning Camp.” It was intentionally structured to feel like a conference and even included a “conference guide” style booklet for teachers. The Blended Learning Camp had a theme in order to bring fun to the week. The general structure was that each day began with an opening keynote and ended with a closing keynote. Social Studies Teacher Luke spoke about the unique structure of the PD: It was not just a stand and deliver about what was happening. There was a lot of teacher choice and initiative for how we were going to do it. We did some parts independently by following the guided document, and some things were learned by attending specific sessions related to sections within the document to get more support and help. I think that that was unique because it really differentiated it for a teacher like me who gets to sit there and knock it out versus the teacher who was a little hesitant to change. English Teacher Nick shared how the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team structured PD: 90 Throughout the week, the teachers had to complete eight ‘campfire modules’ or semiindependent digital lessons built-in Google Docs. There were eight classrooms, each one focusing on a different module, that each had a member of the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team available to support the teachers through that specific module. Teachers moved fluidly in any order that they choose through the modules. Throughout the week, there were also mandatory breakout sessions, but teachers were able to choose the day and time to attend those sessions. There were also EdCamp style forums each day where teachers suggested topics of discussions, and organic conversations took place on topics of interest to teachers. Instructional Coach Jim credits this format for the success of their summer PD: “We had the camp that summer, and it was amazing, one of the most amazing professional development experiences that I've ever witnessed because we took this huge initiative that involved a certain amount of change and, not just in how we teach, but why we teach.” Study participants spoke positively about the summer PD structure. The PD not only helped them learn how to implement 1:1; it also showed them how 1:1 would benefit teachers and students. According to English Teacher Nick, “The professional developments that were developed were really impactful. I would particularly point to the professional development offerings over the summer, where we had a conference-style type of professional development where teachers could tailor their own supports that they wanted to get.” Teachers appreciated the variety of supports that were available through the PD structure. Science Teacher Connor said, “There were always helpful people and they had modules broken down, very simply into chunks. You definitely learned by practicing. It was not scary. Being with the other teachers that were 91 new, and helping each other out was nice.” Teachers appreciated the peer support that was available through the structure of the PD offered at the study site. Pedagogical professional development. Instructional Coach Jim, one of the leaders on the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team, shared that “at the district trainings, everything was about the various tools, but we did not feel that was as useful because it was just about the tool.” At the district level, the trainings were most often focused on tools, but the consensus at the study site was that teachers needed support in strategies for 1:1 implementation, specifically support in understanding how pedagogy changes in a 1:1 environment. While setting her vision for the initiative, Principal Anna shared that 1:1 “…changed the way that planning occurred and all the different aspects of what teachers had to plan.” The 1:1 program changed the key work of professional learning communities (PLCs) to include implementation of the devices and the expectations of what the classroom environment would now look like. English Teacher Nick believed that 1:1 technology should be culturally embedded in the work of the school. We should be talking about technology in a way that is culturally embedded. Talking about technology needs to be synonymous with talking about instruction. So technology should be leveraged toward a specific means. It should be leveraged toward driving and monitoring of student understanding, toward providing students with opportunities for engagement. The digital instruction piece needs to be synonymous with instruction. The participants in this study felt strongly that teachers needed to learn how to use the device to engage students in meaningful work. According to Instructional Coach Jim, a 1:1 device is not a substitute for good teaching: “It is not because the lesson activity is on the computer that makes it more engaging, it is what 92 the teacher is about to do with the computer that makes it engaging.” Social Studies Teacher Luke shared a similar sentiment: Good teaching is still good teaching in a 1:1 environment. What makes lessons memorable is the passion the teacher has for their craft. What is going to make you a good teacher? Kids do not talk about me as a good teacher because I was standardsaligned, and I asked the right questions. They could tell I loved what I was doing. Study participants felt that teachers have to focus on instruction first and technology second; in a 1:1 environment, technology should be synonymous with instruction. According to Assistant Principal Ben, the goal of professional development was not to train teachers how to use specific tools; the goal was for them to learn how to imbed 1:1 technology in their instruction to increase student engagement: The challenges of 1:1 are your typical teacher challenges. How do you manage the classroom? How you do all these different pieces? My recommendation to teachers is that they do not need to be the master of all of it; just pick one or two pieces that you are going to be really good at those and master those. By helping teachers focus on classroom management and then one or two 1:1 strategies, administrators and teacher leaders believed that teachers could see success and preserve their motivation for 1:1 implementation. Follow up professional development needed to prevent regression. Throughout the study, participants acknowledged a need for ongoing professional development. Reading Teacher Beth spoke to this when she shared her desire for ongoing training: “I think we all need to be trained and retrained. We need ongoing training, especially with new stuff that has come out.” 93 According to Instructional Coach Jim, as teachers improved their aptitude in a 1:1 environment, they continued to benefit from professional development that was tailored to their specific needs: I feel like at some point, teachers kind of stagnated a little bit, and it was like, ‘I'm just going to digitize everything.’ They were just creating digital worksheets to put on Google classroom. For some teachers, they looked at it as a way to not have to teach because, in their minds, that became sort of a virtual learning experience. I feel like they could have used more help with using 1:1 as a tool as opposed to using it to teach the class. According to Social Studies Teacher Luke, the goal of 1:1 was not the digitization of work and replacement of good teaching strategies: “The emphasis has to be on research-based instruction and not [the] implementation of the technology because if you just focus on the technology, you're not going to see the growth that schools should be producing.” The shift in focus for longterm implementation should be on researched-based instructional strategies utilizing the 1:1 devices. Reading Teacher Beth believed that administrators should also receive proper training to prevent misuse: “If a teacher does not know what they are doing with 1:1, [then] it can go down the wrong path, and if the administration doesn't know what they're necessarily doing with 1:1, it can definitely go down the wrong path.” Assistant Principal Ben shared a similar feeling on the role of administration in sustaining successful 1:1 implementation: As a school leader, it requires a realignment of your priorities, specifically when it comes to professional development. There are some schools that have started strong with 1:1 and then backslid, due to change in leadership, change in policy, whatever it may be. As the leader, you have got to continue to be the one out front with the vision, with the why, 94 and modeling… It is really about the alignment of the leadership with the digital vision for your school because the school can go forward and then go backwards. School administrators must continue to focus on the vision for 1:1 and provide professional development to teachers to support 1:1 implementation and prevent backsliding. Principal promoted a safe and supportive environment for teachers. At its foundation, the core of 1:1 is teachers because the program will live or die as a result of teacher implementation. Therefore, Principal Anna put effort into setting the tone for a safe and supportive environment for teachers. There were five primary areas of consideration when planning teacher support structures: clear messaging, the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team, Digital Coach, informal peer support structures with collaboration, and gradual release of the technology to teachers with small, manageable goals. Clear messaging. Although the principal was the leader of the school, it was not necessary for her to have all the answers and be the expert. Assistant Principal Ben shared that it was important for Principal Anna to establish and support the vision, or the “why” of the program: The leadership team knew that the principal needs to be the leader. They do not necessarily have to be the expert on the ‘how,’ but they need to be the cheerleader on the ‘why.’ ‘What [is] the vision as to why are we doing this?’ That is the very first thing teachers are going to ask you, followed by parents, especially if you have been in a school that's been successful. ‘Why are we changing things?’ Social Studies Teacher Luke saw the clear, informative messaging as a high point of the vision surrounding the program: “[Principal Anna] set the tone and then trusted. It was evident that her culture and her vision for 1:1 was very present in every meeting.” Social Studies Teacher Luke 95 also shared that his experience with the 1:1 implementation was positive. When he switched schools a few years later, the school he moved to was preparing to transition to 1:1. He expected the transition to be similar to what he had at the study site. The experience he had at the new school helped him “realize very quickly that our success was a result of teacher leaders, coaches, and school leadership, all through the vision of Principal Anna and at the direction of Principal Anna for that matter, which led to our success.” Instructional Coach Jim specifically spoke about Principal Anna’s vision and how she set the tone by using the technology and modeling use of the 1:1 technology for others: To be successful in implementing an initiative like this, success comes from the top. Because she was willing to make those changes and model it herself, it was a lot easier for everybody else to fall in line. It was not one of those initiatives that we're so familiar with where the principal says, ‘yes, we're going to do this,’ and then she doesn't do it, or she doesn't require her administrators to use it. She was constantly driving us to find ways that we could do our business digitally. Digital curriculum leadership team. The district vision for 1:1 implementation included every school having a Digital Curriculum Leadership Team made up of approximately five teacherleaders and/or instructional coaches. What was unique about the team at the study site was that it was substantially larger, and included a dedicated Digital Coach, which was not the case at other 1:1 sites in the district. According to Instructional Coach Jim, one of the unique features of the team was its makeup: “We selected the digital curriculum team, which consisted of various members of the leadership team plus subject area or content area teachers so that there was representation across the curriculum.” It was important to Principal Anna that every department have representation on the team so she could ensure there was support in all areas. 96 The Digital Curriculum Leadership Team was the primary support structure that Principal Anna created as part of her vision for 1:1. Principal Anna felt it was important for a teacher-led team to model best practices and support teachers, which is why the structure of the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team was so important to her: I needed a team that could roll those trainings out, that were sitting in those same seats and having to do the same things too. It being led by teachers and being a ‘this is how you do it.’ ‘This is how it works with our kids,’ and then able to model and show them was important. Principal Anna wanted to create a culture of support for teachers that was built on peer support through the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team. English Teacher Nick said, “One of the things that our district did right is having the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team, having a local sitebased team to convey information and support the skillset of the teachers. We need to continue digital curriculum leadership teams.” Site-based teams know the needs of the specific school community better than anyone else, and they can support the skillset of the unique staff at the school site. Assistant Principal Ben shared about a conversation he had with the district about building our Digital Curriculum Leadership Team, “At first the district told us we only needed five people, and we were like, ‘absolutely not. We need one person for every department.’ So the considerations were really about building a support mechanism for the teachers.” The makeup of the team was important as well. Assistant Principal Ben went on to say, “You need people that are going to be on board. Who is on the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team is very important. We used to say ‘you need someone who's going to drink the Kool-Aid,’” In essence, these leaders believed the members of the team are the biggest advocates to 1:1 implementation on campus, so they had to support the initiative fully. 97 Instructional Coach Jim, who was a member of the team, credited the collective knowledge of the team as one of its strengths: “We knew what we were talking about. We were knowledgeable. When we did not have an answer, we knew where to go for the answer.” Instructional Coach Jim also noted that the positivity and patience of the team were important in building a strong culture around 1:1. Instructional Coach Jim said, “We were patient, and we were positive. Even when we got frustrated, we knew that we could not say, ‘This is a terrible idea. Why don't we ever do this?’ We just kept saying, well, we just have to work on it.” The teachers felt a great deal of support from the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team. Reading Teacher Beth shared that, “The first couple of years were fantastic. I felt very supported.” Science Teacher Connor said, “Principal Anna did a good job of picking people to help because there was always someone to call.” The principal invested considerable resources in building a Digital Curriculum Leadership Team to support the 1:1 initiative. Math Teacher Jon was particularly impressed with the school-based leadership’s anticipation of the teachers' and students’ needs. He shared that he expected it to “be a cluster,” but the teachers were provided the tools, knowledge, and support needed for them to be successful. Principal Anna also wanted teachers to feel confident in a digital environment: I needed to make sure that that we had a group of teachers that were not afraid of technology, and they were not afraid of trying something new or using technology in their instruction where a kid might know more about it than the teacher. Principal Anna spent a great deal of time communicating with the staff about the importance of the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team and sharing the ways in which the team would support teachers to make this a smooth, successful process. The communication and 98 messaging surrounding the program was pivotal to setting the tone and creating a positive culture and climate surrounding the program. Principal Anna prioritized support for teachers in her vision for 1:1 implementation: I wanted a team because I wanted the teachers to have enough support. I did not want a teacher to get frustrated when all of a sudden, the network went down, or their smartboard was not working, or they did not know how to use a certain program. Being able to have a team that could respond to them immediately to calm their fears, but then always making sure that they had support. Principal Anna credits the success of 1:1 to the committed team that implemented the initiative: I think that we probably had a much stronger team and most of the other schools. I knew with high-needs students, many inexperienced teachers, and teachers that were veteran teachers with little technology skills that I needed a dedicated person, a digital coach. Somebody that sat in a teacher seat, and knew what teachers were going through, so the digital coach could say, ‘this is not going to work for a teacher.’ According to Assistant Principal Ben, one of the primary objectives of the team was to generate teacher buy-in for 1:1: It was really about getting the teachers on board. The kids were not the problem. It was getting teachers to change their habits and incorporate 1:1. Because if the teachers did not buy into it, it did not matter what we said and did. We were hyper-focused on finding people that were naturally drawn to the technology and wanted to do it. Principal Anna spoke to her vision for the importance of the Digital Curriculum Leadership team in generating teacher buy-in: 99 It was very important for it to be led by the teacher team. Being able to have that committed team that says, ‘We're in this, we're going to go through this together. I am always going to be here to hold your hand. If you have a question, any of us are available. We will be able to talk through these issues.’ That was important. Two of the research participants, Instructional Coach Jim and English Teacher Nick, were members of the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team. They provided insight into the work they did as members of the team as well as ways Principal Anna supported the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team members. Instructional Coach Jim was impressed that the principal supported the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team through their own professional growth, which allowed them to improve their own skills and abilities, better preparing them to support the needs of the larger school community. English Teacher Nick shared that the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team’s role was supporter and cheerleader. I would say that the messaging from the district was a little bit flat. I think that at the school site, we had to take on a role of selling this idea and getting teachers behind it. We were the cheerleaders. That came from within our team. The teachers who had been identified to be on the team took a high level of ownership in terms of engaging our faculty in starting with ‘why.’ Digital Coach. According to Instructional Coach Jim, the Digital Coach was a necessary and important role. “You have to have that person. You have someone who’s day is devoted to that every day.” According to Science Teacher Connor, the digital coach provided necessary teacher support: “I always felt supported. I could always like email the digital coach or go see the digital coach. It was nice to have a person that I could go to with questions. So I like having that one person who adds that layer of support.” 100 A dedicated digital coach was helpful in providing support for teachers and setting expectations for implementation. According to Science Teacher Connor, the coach was charged with the gradual roll-out of trainings throughout the year of planning and into the first year of implementation: The digital coach provided professional development for us and communicated what was expected of us. It was not like they were throwing us to the sharks. It was a gradual released into the having the computers. So some people, like me, we went right for it. We did everything on the computer. Some people only did some things on the computer, and that was okay. It was very go at your own pace, with what you are comfortable with. I never felt judged. The dedicated digital coach provided teachers with the level of support they needed to be successful at various levels of integration. Gradual release of technology to teachers with small, manageable goals. Principal Anna communicated a clear vision by creating a safe and supportive environment for teachers to work on key non-negotiables. She started with a small number of non-negotiables that were focused on high yield digital strategies and tools. We started small with certain non-negotiables. ‘These are the things that we were going to do.’ I did not want them to try to do everything. I did not want to open it up and let teachers pick the 1:1 technology programs they wanted to do for fun. We wanted to have the ones that had the most value but also that could be foundational systems for us. She wanted 1:1 to be part of the school culture and there to be a positive climate, not only surrounding the initiative but in the school as a whole. She felt that in order for her vision to be successful, she had to provide sufficient supports for teachers. 101 There was a continuum of expectations and support for teachers’ implementation without judgment, which extended to the support provided by the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team. According to Instructional Coach Jim, the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team and administrators supported teachers in incrementally increasing usage of digital tools: “We were mindful of the learning curve. We pushed blended learning. We never told anybody that they had to do everything digitally. We provided whatever resources teachers needed to be able to do a blend of traditional and digital.” The focus at the study site was on working toward the implementation of blended learning with a combination of digital and traditional tools used in the lesson. According to Assistant Principal Ben, there was a focus on incremental change: I told teachers, ‘You do not have to be a master of everything.’ We would give four or five options for every piece of it and say, ‘pick one, let's get great at that. And then we'll go from there.’ We gave people a lot of information to start off with, but we did not make them drink the whole fire hose. We said, ‘take what you can handle, and we will go from there.’ You have your rock stars that are going to pick it up and rock and roll and run right down the road like nothing ever happened. And then you got those that aren't going to be able to make it happen sometimes, and you got to go spend more time with them and walk through it with them. The Digital Curriculum Leadership team, instructional coaches, and administrators worked to help all teachers be successful. According to Instructional Coach Jim, they set realistic goals and targets for teacher implementation: The team set goals. We shared with everyone what our goal was. By the end of the first nine weeks, we wanted at least one assignment in Google classroom or something like that. It was something that was not that demanding, but if they did not reach that goal at 102 the end of the first nine weeks, it was not like they got a bad evaluation or anything. It was just like we kept encouraging them. It was important to the team that the initiative not be punitive in nature. English Teacher Nick shared the thinking behind the team’s intentional creation of a space to practice: “Anytime that you are talking about changing practice, you have to have that safe space to try, fail, revise, and reflect. Members of the leadership team really endorsed that process and allowed for the development and growth of our teachers.” Principal Anna wanted teachers to feel safe and supported. Principal Anna said, “We set up our trainings so that teachers felt like they were well trained and they had enough support, and that it was not threatening. Even though their level of technology skills might not be as high as some of the other teachers, everyone felt this was doable.” Science Teacher Connor certainly believed that the initiative was non-threatening: “It was very low pressure. It was not like they were breathing down your neck like ‘you're going to do this.’ They said, ‘use it when you can,’ it was not like a gotcha. They were there to help, not to bully you into using computers.” Teachers felt that the gradual release of technology with small, manageable goals, made the project seem attainable, and they felt constant support in reaching those goals. Changes to Teachers’ Attitudes and Feelings. Teachers' initial attitudes and feelings surrounding the 1:1 implementation varied wildly, but ultimately, through the strong vision of Principal Anna, the research participants all had very positive attitudes and feelings about the 1:1 program by the end of the year of planning. Encouragement for Teacher Implementation. Discussion about the supportive nature of the 1:1 implementation was present in all interviews. Reading Teacher Beth shared that she 103 “loved the positive energy of the school and the administration at that time.” According to Science Teacher Connor, there was a positive, supportive, family atmosphere at the time, which was influenced by positive administrator attitudes and positive messaging about 1:1: It was a very like connected campus. The admin from the top down came into it with a positive attitude. It was not, ‘Oh, we're going to do this because we're being told to do this.’ It was, ‘We have this great opportunity to pilot this program, and now you have an opportunity to influence what is going to go on in the rest of the district.’ According to Social Studies Teacher Luke, it was an “all-in” feeling where every member of the leadership team, including the principal, assistant principals, and instructional coaches, and many teachers, were expected to participate in leading the rollout: I think it was sold as an all-in like ‘every member of this leadership team is a part of this transition’ in a supportive role as well as a "we're moving in this direction" role… I think it made it very clear that this was going to be something that was expected. According to Instructional Coach Jim, the communication surrounding the implementation was intentionally calm and reassuring of teacher concerns, while still setting clear expectations for implementation: That initial sharing of information, setting the tone for what your expectations are, was important. We were able to create that environment where it was not a major freak out. We just approached everything with the notion that everything will be okay, and then once you have shared that information, then you have to provide all the training that is necessary for teachers to be successful. Instructional Coach Jim shared that the administrators were supportive and understanding: “They knew that this was a big change for our teachers, so they didn’t come in, right off the bat, trying 104 to penalize them when they were [not] 100% digital.” The participants felt that the administrators understood the potential impact of 1:1 and were patient and supportive of teachers English Teacher Nick mentioned the patience that was shown to teachers: I think that our principal was more patient and understanding of the process being authentic as opposed to the school being compliant… Assistant principals were supportive in that they helped us to create opportunities for teachers to try new techniques and methods of instruction. I think that their buy-in was critical for teachers to adopt these methods or tools that we were providing in our professional development. Consideration for teacher’s attitudes and feelings. Some teachers like Science Teacher Connor, were excited. Science Teacher Connor said, “A lot of teachers were excited about 1:1. Where there challenges? Yes, But that is going to happen with anything any school does for that matter. We did it as a team, and we had success as a team.” While some teachers were excited, other teachers were initially fearful of the unknown and the change in how they had taught for so long. Assistant Principal Ben said, My job was to calm the waters. The trepidation was definitely on the teacher side. Some of our veteran teachers that have been in the game for a while were fearful. They said, ‘Hey, I have been doing this for 20 years, and all of a sudden, you're telling me I got to do this completely different?’ My role was definitely calming the waters, easing fears, and getting people more comfortable with this idea. Some teachers were concerned about changing their practices after many years of teaching, but the administration and instructional coaches worked to help teachers have an open mind and growth mindset with regard to implementing 1:1 technology. Veteran Math Teacher Jon said, 105 I was not looking forward to 1:1. I was scared and a little bewildered. It was daunting… but by the time it got here, I felt great. I was not comfortable with technology, but I feel that [the] administration set the expectation and gave us enough help if we needed it. It was a very good experience. The administration and the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team was intentional in working with hesitant teachers to calm their fears and help them feel comfortable with the transition. Reading Teacher Beth said, I was scared. I like to be the best, and I was afraid that I was not going to be the best anymore and that other people’s kids were going to do better than mine, and I did not like that. I had established my routines and lessons for the past 12 years. Then I realized how much easier it would make our lives and how much better it would be for the kids. I was kind of excited about all the things you could do with 1:1. Teachers were concerned about how 1:1 would change teaching, but once teachers understood how 1:1 technology would benefit them and students, they were more willing to accept the 1:1 implementation. Principal Anna had specific memories regarding the success of the summer PD and the impact on teacher attitudes: My favorite memory was in the preplanning time when we did the campfire training... being able to see the teachers coming in maybe with a negative attitude or not wanting to really participate in an entire week of professional development. They had some apprehension, and then they went through the first day of PD and to see the smiles and the excitement because it was not what they really thought. They got excited over the next few days, and they were ready for immediate implementation. 106 Instructional Coach Jim has had many years’ experience working with teachers in the transition to a 1:1 environment. His biggest takeaway has been that teachers need to keep an open mind: Just be open-minded more than anything else, because you have to have an open mind with 1:1. You cannot come into this thinking, ‘I can't do this.’ I try to develop that growth mindset from the very start with my teachers. I say, ‘Well, yeah, you cannot do it yet, but we're here to help you do it, and you will be able to.’ I guarantee you because I have done it enough now to know that people who come in, who are scared of 1:1 or they do not understand 1:1, they get it by the end of the year. They are fine. I have never had anybody that just never, ever, ever could not get anything. Teachers are going to implement 1:1 in different ways, depending on their willingness, mindset, and abilities. Despite trepidation, concern, and fear, all study participants were ultimately excited about 1:1 implementation after the year of planning. Once their fears were addressed, then they knew what was possible in a 1:1 environment, and they were excited about the 1:1 implementation. Informal peer support structures and collaboration. While the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team provided formal support structures for teachers, informal peer supports were repeatedly mentioned by the teacher-participants of this study as transformative to their experience of 1:1 implementation. Science Teacher Connor said, “There was lots of support, but a lot of people are intimidated by asking people at the top. But you know, they are not scared to ask the teacher next door.” It was important to empower the teacher-leaders to support their peers. According to Social Studies Teacher Luke, We had informal Tech Tuesdays. It was just, ‘Hey, members of the DCTL will be in this room at this time. If you're having issues, come on by, we'll talk about anything.’ I met 107 teachers that I otherwise would have never talked to. I remember the one teacher brought me a gift because of the things I helped him with. Informal support structures were the most beneficial as they created a culture of peer support and increased teacher buy-in for the initiative. Instructional Coach Jim said, “Teachers truly collaborated and supported each other in learning how to use these tools, which made that experience even greater. I think it helped the teachers to understand that they owned this in our school.” The peer support structures had a very positive impact on the climate and culture of the school, beyond 1:1 implementation. According to veteran Reading Teacher Beth, she always felt supported: “Anytime we had a question those first couple of years, there was somebody around to help us, often another teacher who knew more. Once I learned something, I could teach it to somebody.” Instructional Coach Jim said, “We had people who took to it like a fish to water, and they just absorbed it all, and then they were able to go and help other teachers.” The veteran teachers were happy to get help from their peers. According to Math Teacher Jon, “People would help me out. It was an informal thing at our school. Everyone was really on the same page. It felt like a family.” The positive culture and climate of the school helped create a family atmosphere where everyone helped each other and supported each other. As Instructional Coach Jim intimated, the culture of peer support and collaboration was pervasive: “The people that we had on campus who were already tech-savvy and familiar with the tools that we were going to be using and with the computers made it like a school-wide, a true school-wide initiative. It wasn't just about, you know, a couple of people rolling it out. They truly collaborated and supported each other and learning how to use these tools, which made that experience even greater, and I think it helped. I think it helped the teachers to understand that 108 they owned this in our school. Science Teacher Connor said, “I don't know if 1:1 could have made us closer, because we were close before. I think it positively impacted teachers because lots of teachers were sharing new ideas and what they were doing.” Findings In Table 4.3, the findings with regard to the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 initiative at a large, urban high school in the southeast are outlined. The data-analysis process led to six common codes, which resulted in the development of two superordinate themes, each with three subordinate themes. The unique possibilities of 1:1 were prominent in influencing the principal's vision for 1:1, and the unique possibilities for teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches allowed for improved workflow and efficiency, enjoyment in teaching, and increased creativity. The participants identified unique possibilities for students as well that included increase enjoyment in school, increased motivation and pride, and increased graduation rates. The participants shared that the success at the study site was realized as a result of the extensive supports for teachers, including professional development that was well structures, a safe and supportive working environment, which allowed for teachers' attitudes and feelings surrounding 1:1 to be positively influenced. The study conclusions will be discussed in Chapter 5. It will begin with an overview of the study, before moving into the findings, conclusions, implications for practice, recommendations for practice and research, and final thoughts. 109 Table 4.3 Overview of Findings Superordinate Theme 1: Unique Possibilities Presented During 1:1 Implementation Themes 1.1 – Unique possibilities of 1:1 implementation sparked principal’s vision 1.2 – Unique possibilities for teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches • • • • • • • 1.3 – Unique possibilities for students • • • • Subordinate Themes The principal’s classroom teaching experience led to excitement The unique possibility to address student needs in a low SES schools influenced the principal’s vision Improved workflow and efficiency for teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches Increased teacher enjoyment in teaching Allowed for improved creativity Improved instruction and monitoring of student understanding Improved relationships between administrators and teachers Increased student engagement and motivation Increased enjoyment in school Increased personal pride and school pride Increased student achievement Superordinate Theme 2: Extensive Teacher Support Structure Themes 2.1 – Professional Development structure was important to teacher learning 2.2 – The principal set the tone for a safe and supportive environment for teachers 2.3 – Changes to teachers attitudes and feelings • • • • • • • • Subordinate Themes The professional development offered at the site was unique and impactful The Digital Curriculum Leadership Team was instrumental in preparing and supporting teachers There was always help available when needed The principal provided for teachers’ needs Administrators were patient and supportive Initial emotions were mixed, but the year of planning allowed for increased confidence and built excitement for 1:1 Informal peer collaboration created a sense of unity Experiences were overwhelmingly positive Note: This table summarizes the findings of this study, parallel to the subordinate themes. 110 Chapter 5: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations Despite the benefits associated with implementing a 1:1 digital program with students, not all teachers are maximizing student's use of technology in the classroom (Fenton, 2017). Much of the literature on this topic has explored barriers and challenges at the school or district level (Hohlfeld et al., 2008; Kimmons & Hall, 2016; Parks et al., 2016; Stone, 2016). Some research findings focused on the factors predicting whether teachers will integrate technology have been conflicting (Fenton, 2017; Kim et al., 2013; Vongkulluksn et al., 2018). Few studies have explored the experiences of stakeholders in the context of a successful and sustained 1:1 digital implementation initiative. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative IPA study was to explore the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 digital program at an urban high school in the southeastern United States. Schools and districts that plan to invest and implement a 1:1 program need to overcome challenges and avoid the failure and associated financial costs of an unsuccessful implementation. Although many of these challenges are detailed in the literature (Fenton, 2017; Harris, 2005; Keane & Keane, 2017; Kim et al., 2013; Peterson & Scharber, 2017), most studies have explored challenges at the school or district level. Exploring the experiences of teachers and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 digital program uncovered meaningful information that can be used by school leaders considering a 1:1 program. The following research question guided this qualitative study: RQ1: What are the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 initiative at a large, urban high school in the southeast? 111 The subquestions were: SQ1: What are the perceptions of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches of their preparedness to implement the 1:1 initiative? SQ2: What are the perceptions of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches of the leadership support at their school to implement the 1:1 initiative? A qualitative approach allowed the researcher to explore the phenomenon in the context of individual experiences while building a rich description of the phenomenon (Creswell, 2013). For this study, qualitative research was beneficial for capturing rich descriptions of how school leaders and teachers approached the development and implementation of a successful 1:1 program initiative. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is a qualitative research approach that is concerned with exploring how individuals make sense of life experiences and how individuals derive meaning from their experiences (Larkin et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2009). This approach is pertinent to the problem of practice under study because it aims to provide detailed examinations of personal lived experience (Smith & Osborn, 2015). Since the purpose of this study was to understand stakeholders' perceptions of the implementation and sustained practice of the 1:1 program, a qualitative research method using IPA was appropriate. Study participants included teachers, instructional coaches, and administrators at a large, urban high school in the southeastern U.S. who experienced the phenomenon under study. This was an ideal sample size because of IPA's concern with obtaining detailed accounts of each individual's experience (Smith et al., 2009). For this study, the primary selection criterion was whether the stakeholder had experience with successfully implementing and sustaining the 1:1 initiative at the study site. For this study, successful implementation was defined as a 1:1 program that is ongoing and has been sustained by teachers and administrators for more than 112 three years. The secondary selection criteria required participants to have been employed at the study site during the 2014-2015 school year, which was the year 1:1 planning and teacher training began. Additionally, teachers must have attended the weeklong summer professional development training and have been employed for the entire 2015-2016 school year at the study site during the first year of implementation. Data for this study was collected from one-on-one in-depth interviews. According to Smith et al. (2009), in-depth interviews are a useful method of data collection for IPA studies. In order to get the most meaningful responses possible, questions were open-ended in order to prompt detailed accounts from each participant of the experience under investigation. The analysis of the research data used Smith et al. 's (2009) six-step process, which is iterative and inductive. The analysis moves from a more particular level to a shared level, with a special emphasis on understanding each participant's point of view. • Step 1: Reading and Re-reading • Step 2: Initial Noting • Step 3: Developing Emergent Themes • Step 4: Searching for Connections across Emergent Themes • Step 5: Moving to the Next Case • Step 6: Looking for Patterns Across Cases Findings. The data-analysis process led to the identification of two superordinate themes: 1:1 implementation presented unique possibilities and an extensive teacher support network. The first superordinate theme of how 1:1 implementation presented unique possibilities included three subordinate themes: (a) unique possibilities of 1:1 implementation sparked principal's vision; (b) unique possibilities for teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches; and (c) 113 unique possibilities for students. The second superordinate theme was the need for an extensive teacher support network and included three subordinate themes: (a) professional development structure was important to teacher learning, (b) principal set the tone for a safe and supportive environment for teachers, and (c) changes to teachers' attitudes and feelings. The balance of this chapter will present the conclusions for each of the three research questions with connections to the findings. The conclusions are connected to the relevant research in the field. Implications for practice are provided along with recommendations for practice and research and final thoughts. This chapter will present the conclusions as they related to the research questions, recommendations for practice, recommendations for further research at the school, district, and state level, as well as final thoughts. Discussion The experiences of research participants provided seven main conclusions that may prove helpful to schools and districts implementing 1:1 programs. Table 5.1 outlines the three research questions and associated conclusions. Table 5.1 Overview of Conclusions Research Questions RQ1: What are the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 initiative at a large, urban high school in the southeast? SQ1: What are the perceptions of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches of their preparedness to implement the 1:1 initiative? Conclusions • On-going P.D. tailored to participants' needs gave participants the necessary tools to successfully implement 1:1 into their pedagogy • Recognizing the benefits of 1:1 for teachers and students increased buy-in among all participants • Participants experienced intentional, visionary leadership resulting in increased commitment to 1:1 • Participants believed that peer mentoring and support were invaluable • The gradual transition to 1:1 led to shared feelings of preparedness 114 SQ2: What are the perceptions of teachers, • Participants experienced improved administrators, and instructional coaches of relationships with leaders as a result of sharing the leadership support at their school to in the experience 1:1 integration implement the 1:1 initiative? Note: This table summarizes the conclusions of this study, parallel to the research question, and two sub-questions considered. RQ1: What are the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 initiative at a large, urban high school in the Southeast? On-going, tailored P.D. Teachers were willing to implement 1:1 because they experienced a common feeling of preparedness and support as a result of the ongoing P.D. they received, both in the year of planning and during the first year of implementation. The composition of the school community was diverse in their readiness and ability to implement 1:1, so the focus on the strategies and the self-paced format of the summer P.D. was a specific high point to the research participants. Instructional Coach Jim had specific memories regarding the success of the summer P.D. that was planned by the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team: "We had the whole blended learning camp that summer, and I think it was an amazing, one of the most amazing professional development experiences that I have ever witnessed." Principal Anna also shared her memories of how the P.D. changed teacher attitudes and increased their willingness to implement 1:1: My favorite memory was... seeing the teachers coming in maybe with a negative attitude or not wanting to really participate in an entire week of professional development. They had some apprehension, and then they went through the first day of P.D. and to see the smiles and the excitement because it was not what they really thought. They got excited over the next few days, and they were ready for immediate implementation. 115 Study participants were positive about the summer P.D. structure because it helped them learn how to implement 1:1. Teachers also appreciated the variety of supports that were available through the P.D. structure. According to Science Teacher Connor: "There were always helpful people, and they had modules broken down, very simply into chunks. You definitely learned by practicing. It was not scary." Teachers felt safe and supported in their efforts to go 1:1. It was important to the team that the initiative processes not be punitive in nature. Nick shared the thinking behind the team's intentional creation of a space to practice, "Anytime that you are talking about changing practice, you have to have that safe space to try and fail and revise and reflect. Members of the leadership team really endorsed that process and allowed for the development and growth of our teachers." Principal Anna wanted teachers to feel safe and supported. Anna said, "We set up our trainings so that teachers felt like they were well trained and they had enough support, and that it was not threatening. Even though their level of technology skills might not be as high as some of the other teachers, everyone felt this was doable." For this study, successful implementation is defined as a 1:1 program that is ongoing and has been sustained by teachers and administrators for more than three years. All participants in this study were able to successfully implement 1:1 in their respective positions, in part due to the ongoing P.D. that was tailored to their needs. Professional development is an important component of any school initiative; 1:1 is no exception. Researchers have repeatedly reported a disconnect between professional development for technology integration into the classroom and the actual pedagogical needs of teachers (Kimmons & Hall, 2016; Vongkulluksn et al., 2018). Hechter and Vermette (2014) found that teachers having input on the type of professional development that best supports their technology use in the classroom was the ideal. However, Parks and colleagues (2016) found that the 116 majority of teachers in their study of Southeastern U.S. middle and high schools were not prepared to implement educational technology successfully and did not understand how to implement technology authentically. Counter to these researcher's findings, study participants had a high degree of willingness to implement the 1:1 program because the vision of the principal included high levels of support and ample opportunities for teachers to receive P.D. that prepared them for implementation. The format of the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team included teacher-leaders from all content areas that could speak to the unique needs of the teachers at the study site, which further resulted in teachers' feelings of preparedness and support. Teaching benefits. All participants shared the belief that 1:1 implementation improved efficiency. The benefits of 1:1 increased teacher buy-in in two ways: first, they were told about the potential benefits of implementing 1:1 and were motivated to embed 1:1 in their pedagogy; second, they realized the benefits in practice and were motivated to implement 1:1 technology in their classroom. Teachers reported that over the long term, 1:1 implementation decreased their time spent planning and differentiating lessons for students. Teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches experienced how 1:1 technology allowed for better organization and streamlined workflow. Administrators and instructional coaches also experienced the ease of sharing resources with others and working remotely. Teachers found that 1:1 helped make data collection and student monitoring easier and less time-consuming and gave teachers the ability to make quick adjustments to the lesson without wasting instructional time. Teachers increased their efficiency in collecting quick feedback from students due to the unique possibilities available in a 1:1 environment. Researchers tend to agree on the perceived value or impact of technology on teachers' lives, although efficiency has not previously been singled out as a significant factor in a 117 successful 1:1 implementation. For example, Kimmons and Hall (2016) found that regardless of teacher experience, participants in their study placed a high value on recognizing the discernible impact and ease of implementation of technologies. They went on to say that for teachers to be willing to integrate 1:1 into their practice, they must understand and accept the value to themselves and their students. In their study, teachers were primarily interested in understanding how technology can make their lives easier and help them achieve expected outcomes more efficiently. Vongkulluksn and colleagues (2018) found that teachers who believed technology would enhance their practice spent more time using technology in the classroom. They found that values were a stronger predictor of technology integration than teachers' beliefs in their ability to use new technology. However, study participants repeatedly believed that the promise of increased efficiency for teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches was a lever in initial participant buy-in for 1:1. It was experiencing and realizing increased efficiency which led to the high level of technology integration because teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches realized the value in the technology and as a result, embraced the changes it brought about. The participants understood the potential of 1:1 to increase efficiency, which increased teacher buy-in, which allowed participants to experience the increased efficiency, which led to increased teacher and administrator 1:1 integration. Benefits to students. The participants in this study all had experiences in which 1:1 implementation improved the lives of students, which increased their buy-in for 1:1 implementation. The benefits to students were not only academic but also personal, including perceived increased engagement, including motivation and enjoyment, improved classroom experience, increase personal pride and school pride, and increased student achievement. 118 Instructional Coach Jim identified ways in which 1:1 might have positively affected student achievement and graduation rates: I think many kids actually graduated because they were able to use their devices to get to Khan Academy, which helped so many of them graduate… When you look at how they prepared to take the SAT, how they prepared to take the Postsecondary Education Readiness Test, the ACT… they used those tools that were available to them on their 1:1 devices. Principal Anna spoke to the increased engagement and "the power [of] increasing student learning" as benefits to students, especially in terms of increased pride in themselves and their school as a result of the 1:1 initiative. Reading Teacher Beth felt the ability to "engage students in different modalities of learning" made the learning environment more fun for students. Assistant Principal Ben, Social Studies Teacher Luke, Science Teacher Connor, and Reading Teacher Beth all noted increased student attendance, enjoyment, and engagement in class as student benefits in a 1:1 environment. Researchers have long debated the ways 1:1 technology impacts students, for better or worse. Researchers have found that 1:1 technology provides numerous benefits to students, including: • increases active student learning and engagement in higher-order thinking (Niederhauser et al., 2007) • enhances self-efficacy skills (Kimmons & Hall, 2016) • increased engagement, increased meaningful dialog with peers, and the ability to reflect on their learning (Shirley and Irving (2015) 119 • increased interest, on-task behavior, enjoyment, involvement, active participation, and motivation (Williams & Larwin, 2016) • increased student enjoyment, increased motivation, increased interest in school, and increased student organization (Spanos & Sofos, 2015) • increased student efficiency and self-direction, enhanced communication between students and teachers (Varier et al., 2017) While participants in this study found many of the same benefits to student work and personal lives, existing research on this topic has not addressed how the experience of participants in realizing the student benefits of 1:1 in practice can increase buy-in of 1:1 programs. Intentional, visionary leadership. The research participants were unanimous in their assertion that Principal Anna's leadership provided a 1:1 implementation experience that was intentional and provided a safe and supportive environment for teacher implementation. Instructional Coach Jim credits Principal Anna with the success of the program: "To be successful in implementing an initiative like this, the success comes from the top." English Teacher Nick also felt Principal Anna was pivotal to the success of the program: "The principal was pivotal to casting the vision for what that program needed, and how we needed to leverage this as a way to support instruction as opposed to driving compliance for the use of technology." Principal Anna communicated a clear vision by creating a safe and supportive environment for teachers to work on critical non-negotiables. She wanted 1:1 to be part of the school culture, and for there to be a positive climate, not only surrounding the initiative but in the school as a whole. She felt that in order for her vision to be successful, she had to provide sufficient supports for teachers. English Teacher Nick understood the impact of her role on the 1:1 program: "Our principal was more patient and understanding of the process being authentic as opposed to the 120 school being compliant [in 1:1 implementation]. Reading Teacher Beth understood the supportive role that Principal Anna undertook: "She was the backbone that made it happen… she made sure that we had everything we needed." The primary support structure that Anna created as part of her vision for 1:1 was the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team. She felt it was important for a teacher-led team to model best practices and support teachers. Studies repeatedly show that teachers and administrators perceive that they are not adequately prepared for the unique requirements needed to successfully implement classroom technology (Parks et al., 2016). According to Peterson and Scharber (2017), administrative leadership support in communication and collaboration with key stakeholders is needed for successful 1:1 implementation. Clear and consistent communication by school leaders is important because change brings about uncertainty from teachers and students; therefore, transparency and communication from administrators are needed (Peterson & Scharber, 2017; Stone, 2017). Islam and Gronlund (2016) found that school and district leaders must establish clear visions and expectations for 1:1 program success. Additionally, they found that "a dynamic, visionary leadership is the cornerstone of a laptop program" (p. 211). Administrators that have successful 1:1 programs are usually resilient, visionary leaders that encourage and support risktaking (Islam & Gronlund, 2016). Similarly, the participants in this study repeatedly connected the success of the 1:1 program with the visionary, positive leadership of Principal Anna. They provide evidence of the clear communication of her vision for the program and forethought concerning the support structures teachers needed for successful 1:1 implementation, as evidence of her role in the school's successful and sustained 1:1 program. SQ1: What are the perceptions of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches of their preparedness to implement the 1:1 initiative? 121 Peer mentoring and support. Principal Anna wanted to create a culture of support for teachers that was built on peer support through the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team. The Digital Curriculum Leadership Team was made up of teacher-leaders. English Teacher Nick felt that having a local site-based team to convey information and support the skill set of the teachers was critical to the success of the program. While the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team provided many formal peer support structures for teachers, the informal peer supports were repeatedly mentioned by the teacher-participants of this study as transformative to their experience of 1:1 implementation. Connor noted that teachers' willingness to ask a peer for help was higher than their likelihood of asking an administrator or instructional coach: "A lot of people are intimidated by asking people at the top... they are not scared to ask the teacher next door." Kim and colleagues (2013) suggested that changing adults' beliefs is difficult, but allowing for experiences to challenge teachers' current beliefs may lead to a change in teachers' beliefs, specifically in the context of collaboration among teachers. A cultural environment of teacher collaboration can encourage beliefs that support and encourage technology usage (Kim et al., 2013). Hur and colleagues (2010) found that preparing pre-service teachers to work with veteran and mentor teachers to leverage a standard set of beliefs and values to make technology integration more cooperative is an often-overlooked component of technology integration. Stone (2016) conducted a study of a yearlong 1:1 laptop program evaluation in one Pennsylvania district and identified professional collaborative learning and mentoring to be critical to successful 1:1 implementation. While the existing research on peer support most often refers to formal mentoring programs, the participants at the study site identified informal and formal peer support among the most influential in their implementation of 1:1. 122 Gradual Transition to 1:1. The year of planning was explicitly mentioned by both of the veteran teachers in this study, as one of the critical factors in their willingness to implement 1:1 technology in their classroom. Although hesitant at first, the year of planning gave the participants time to learn through P.D. provided by the Digital Curriculum Leadership Team. This in turn, allowed teachers to grow in their comfort and acceptance of 1:1 technology. Instructional Coach Jim shared that administration were "supportive and whatever we needed, with the understanding that this was a big change for our teachers. They did not come in right off the bat trying to penalize them when they were not 100% digital." Math Teacher Jon felt that the time and a safe space to practice and build his digital skills was important to increase his comfort with the technology. Similarly, Reading Teacher Beth shared that the gradual roll out during the year of planning allowed her to get comfortable with the idea of 1:1 and allowed her to see how the technology could be used to enhance her existing lessons. The gradual rollout of P.D. during the year of planning allowed teachers to view the lessons they were currently teaching without 1:1 technology with the context of how they might look the following year with 1:1 technology available. The year of planning also allowed digital natives to grow in their practice and take their teaching to the next level. According to the existing reach on planning for 1:1 technology implementation, principals must intentionally plan to support teachers in 1:1 technology implementation by providing time for this critical work to occur (Keane & Keane, 2017; Peterson & Scharber, 2017). Hohlfeld and colleagues (2008) identified the comfort with and use of technology by teachers as an essential prerequisite for students to use instructional classroom technology. Hohlfeld and colleagues (2008) also found that teachers should be provided time and access to 123 computers both at school and at home to practice. Experience and continued exposure to educational technologies have a significant impact on teacher willingness and ability to enact a pedagogical shift in their teaching practices (Hohlfeld et al., 2008). Furthermore, research indicates that the duration of professional development programs often distinguishes effective from ineffective programs with yearlong programs working best (Ehman, Bonk, & YamagataLynch, 2005). The findings of those researchers are well aligned to the findings in this study that a gradual transition to 1:1 led to shared feelings of preparation. In the context of this study, the gradual transition happened within the context of the year of planning, which was necessary to increase teacher comfort with the technology, thereby increasing their willingness to implement 1:1 technology with fidelity in their classrooms. SQ2: What are the perceptions of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches of the leadership support at their school to implement the 1:1 initiative? Leaders walked alongside teachers. Administrators and teachers both felt that administrator-teacher relationships were improved as a result of 1:1. Assistant Principal Ben saw administrators and teachers grow closer as a result of walking together through the journey of going 1:1: "It brought administrators off their pedestal, which was good. I saw teachers and administrators grow closer. When you are facing adversity and challenges together, it changes your role." The participants felt the leadership team's commitment to the vision. It was an "all-in" feeling where every member of the leadership team, including the principal, assistant principals, and instructional coaches, and many teachers, were expected to participate in leading the rollout. Social Studies Teacher Luke said, "I think it was sold as an all-in like 'every member of this leadership team is a part of this transition' in a supportive role, as well as a 'we are moving in this direction' role." 124 According to the existing research, relationships are foundational to much of the work that occurs in a school. 1:1 technology has the potential to impact relationships, as evidenced by the work of Kimmons & Hall (2016), who found that such programs can improve collegial relationships. Participants in Kimmons and Hall's (2016) study reported a lack of communication between decision-makers and teachers, leading to inefficiencies, waste, and frustration. However, participants in this study found positive administrator-teacher relationships to be an unanticipated positive consequence to the shared experience between teachers and administrators of learning and growing in their professional practice together. Recommendations for Practice Through the lived experiences of the participants of this study, there were five steps identified that school and district leaders should consider when implementing a 1:1 initiative at any school. In order, they are: 1 - Schools need the right principal for the job, 2 - Build the right team, 3 - Identify and communicate the vision, 4 – Transition gradually, 5 - Do it together. Schools need the right principal for the job. The role of the principal in the success of the 1:1 implementation at the study site cannot be understated. Every participant in the study noted her positive impact on the success of the initiative. Her understanding and identification of the unique possibilities of 1:1 became a platform for communication with stakeholders and were foundational to her vision for the program. A 1:1 program cannot be successful and sustain that success without the right leader. The perfect principal for a 1:1 initiative will have a willingness to learn about the technology, will identify the benefits to stakeholders, will communicate those benefits for stakeholders, and will build a vision for what the program will look like at their school site based on the unique needs of their site. They will invest time and money in building a properly-trained teacher-support team that supports the vision, provide teachers with time and 125 support to prepare for the program, and they must be willing to work alongside teachers to grow in their technology practice as well. Identify and communicate the vision. Principal Anna talked to stakeholders about "the why" of the 1:1 implementation, which fed into the vision for 1:1 at the study site. "The why" varied based on the impacted group, but for teachers, it would improve efficiency and instruction; for students, it would improve students' lives. These benefits were communicated extensively to these groups so that they hand a clear understanding of the reason for the program. Once "the why" was identified, the vision transformed into "the how." Principal Anna knew that teachers needed support structures in order to be successful. She focused her vision on creating an environment for teachers that was conducive to technology integration and poured all available resources into ensuring that stakeholders had what they needed to implement the program. Principals that are implementing a similar program have to identify the unique "why" at their school sites and use that to communicate with students, teachers, parents, instructional coaches, and the administrative team to build momentum and buy-in for the program. Once that buy-in is established, the focus should turn to "the how." The needs of each site will be unique in terms of the number of training teachers will need, and in what areas they should focus, but establishing a vision built on "they why" and "they how" of each site is crucial to success. Build the right team. The Digital Curriculum Leadership Team were the hands that did the work to implement the vision. Principal Anna knew that a team of teacher-leaders would be best positioned to support the teachers at the school site in acquiring and practicing the skills needed to implement a 1:1 program. She provided them a high degree of freedom to make decisions and implement a training program that was aligned to her vision. Teachers are the backbone of a 1:1 program, and regardless of the school site, they will need support and training. 126 Principals must invest resources in building the right team to support their school site. Providing opportunities for the team to build their skill set was an important aspect of preparing the team members at the research site for the program. It is suggested that principals consider sending the members of their team to local and national technology conferences to learn better how to support teachers in 1:1 implementation. Significant consideration should be given to the makeup of the team concerning representation for the majority of content areas. Additionally, the team should be made up of individuals who will remain positive in spite of adversity during the implementation process. Transition gradually. A successful 1:1 implementation takes time. At a minimum, schools should begin the training and teacher preparation process at least one year in advance of the students receiving their devices. Ongoing training is important to build capacity at the site for teachers to implement 1:1 in their classroom, and support their peers in implementation as well. Do it together. The study participants consistently used words like "family" and "all-in" to describe their feelings about the study site during the first two years of the program. Creating a culture and climate of mutual respect and support is important in any school. While challenging in an environment of change, it is possible, as evidenced by the experiences of the study participants, for teachers and administrators to walk through the implantation process together and come out feeling closer on the other side. Principals must refrain from creating an implementation process wherein teachers feel like it is a "gotcha." Observations and feedback should be supportive and allow administrators to teach teachers how to implement 1:1 successfully, and when necessary, learn alongside them, how best to implement 1:1. 127 Recommendations for Research School Level Recommendations. Further research into the impact on students is needed to allow for student voice and to share the experiences of students in implementing a successful 1:1 program. While this research identified benefits to students through the lens of staff experience, it is unknown if and in what ways students feel as though they benefited from 1:1 implementation. The level of parental involvement and buy-in and the impact on the success of a 1:1 program may be an area that would benefit from additional research as well. In circumstances where 1:1 implementation is planned in a district or school with a low level of parental involvement, and where demographics suggest that most students do not have robust parental support, research to identify strategies that improved outcomes would be potentially beneficial. District Level Recommendations. Further research into 1:1 implementation is needed to identify in what respects the 1:1 implementation was unique at the study site, as well as to isolate the key factors that were most impactful in the successful implementation at the study site, primarily the role of the principal in the success of the program. Conducting a similar study of other high schools in the same district would provide useful insight into the factors that were consistent and the factors that varied and their relative impact on the success of the program at the other site of implementation across the district. Additionally, identifying the specific role of the principal would allow for the development of specific principal training programs that could increase principal efficacy in implementing 1:1 programming. State Level Recommendations. Further research is needed to identify how the geographic nature of the school district (large, urban) impacted the success of the program. By conducting similar research in small, rural districts, the outcomes could be compared to this 128 study to isolate key factors of 1:1 implementation that are paramount to 1:1 success. Isolating the specific systems of support for students and staff in small, rural and suburban districts is necessary, as six of the state’s 67 counties are small, rural and small, suburban districts. Identifying a common implementation plan that is replicable across a wide variety of schools and districts, both geographically, socioeconomically, and in size would be helpful to states allocating funds to grow 1:1 programs. Final Thoughts This study was conducted to help district and school leaders glean insight from the "lessons learned" during a successful 1:1 implementation. The participant's experiences revealed some expected and some unexpected conclusions with regard to their lived experience of a successful 1:1 implementation, including the role of the unique possibilities presented in a 1:1 implementation and the extensive teacher support structures that were necessary for success at the study site. While the findings from this study align with much of the literature on technology program implementation, the study revealed the potential for a model of 1:1 implementation that can be replicated across school sites worldwide, which includes five steps: 1 - Schools need the right principal for the job, 2 - Build the right team, 3 - Identify and communicate the vision, 4 Transition gradually, 5 - Do it together. The study also provided a foundation for future research to identify further which factors were unique to the study site, and which factors are replicable across future 1:1 sites. 129 Epilogue March 2020 has ushered in an educational environment that is distinctly different from any other time in our history. In early March, as the COVID-19 virus entered the United States and state and local governments began to take rapid action to "flatten the curve," schools were impacted in a way in which few other industries and systems were. The physical sites of schools were closed. Unique to the education sector was that teachers were tasked with moving from the traditional in-person learning model to a "distance learning" model virtually overnight, with little to no notice or preparation. This move meant transitioning students to a mode of instruction wherein the same level of learning is expected to happen as in-person instruction via other online and virtual modalities. What makes the impact on educational particularly unique is the rapid nature with which that transition occurred. Florida Virtual School was founded in 1997 as the first statewide Internet-based public high school in the United States ("About our District," n.d.). Some may argue that there is precedent for online and blended learning, with online educational institutions having been in place for over 20 years. However, I contest that this environment is uniquely different in its nationwide scope, and impact on brick and mortar schools in terms of the rapid implementation of "distance learning." The conclusions presented in this study are particularly relevant for current as school and district leaders make decisions about how best to implement "distance learning" in this era of COVID-19. To be clear, 1:1 implementation is not the same as "crisis schooling," which is what exists now in this time of rapid implementation of a near nationwide "distance learning" model. We cannot call what is occurring now in the "distance learning" environment, 1:1 implementation. While many schools and districts are using a "distance learning" model that 130 requires every child having access to a laptop or Chromebook and wireless internet, the realities are that for many students, access to those necessary resources may not be a reality. Many families lack access to a device and or wireless internet, and many districts are unable to provide those resources. In fact, I do not believe we should be calling what is happening to K-12 schools in this era of COVID-19 "distance learning," but instead I suggest we call it "Distance Learning During a Crisis Environment." While there are many findings and conclusions from this study that will provide valuable guidance in our current distance learning during a crisis environment, there are many aspects of the current implementation of distance learning that, although likely unavoidable, make it far from ideal. With respect to the question, "What can teachers and school leaders do to prepare?" I offer the following adaptation of my research findings as applied to distance learning during a crisis environment. On-going P.D. tailored to teachers' needs gives teachers the necessary tools to successfully implement distance learning during a crisis environment. We have seen this in action in recent weeks as both schools and districts, as well as public companies, offer just-intime training to support teachers transitioning to distance learning during a crisis environment. The school district in this study are providing daily webinars for teachers across all content areas to help them adjust and adapt their content for the distance learning environment. Similar to 1:1 implementation, distance learning during a crisis environment does provide unique possibilities for teachers, students, administrators, and instructional coaches. Identifying and sharing those benefits would likely increase buy-in among all participants, just as it did in this study. In this study, intentional, visionary leadership resulted in an increased commitment to 1:1. In the distance learning during a crisis environment, this is likely to be no different. There is 131 a high degree of interest and support for student learning, especially in these early days. I fear that without intentional, visionary leadership guiding teachers through the trials and tribulations to come, that teacher motivation may wane and they may begin to experience mental fatigue as they encounter the challenges to come. The administrator and teacher participants in this study believed that peer mentoring and support were invaluable. I believe this collaborative support will become even more critical to teachers in a distance learning during a crisis environment. There is a need for extensive teacher support structure. I recommend bringing teachers together frequently, daily in the first week or two, and then working toward weekly meetings to discuss the challenges and the successes and strategies they are experiencing. Furthermore, the participants in this study experienced improved relationships with leaders as a result of sharing in the experience of 1:1 integration. I believe the shared experience of teaching and working in a distance-learning environment during a crisis will bring people together, especially under the guidance of an intentional, visionary school leader. While participants in this study found that the gradual transition to 1:1 led to shared feelings of preparedness, it is impossible to gradually move to distance learning in a crisis environment at the same rate the participants moved to 1:1, which lasted a year. That said, working over the course of a few weeks to transition gradually to fully distance learning in a crisis environment would allow teachers and students to learn the technology and develop new routines, while also allowing teachers to refine their pedagogy in this new learning environment. One of my wishes in completing this research was to identify a model of 1:1 implementation that could be replicated across school sites worldwide. While what is being 132 replicated at this point is distinctly different from 1:1, the model may prove useful as schools make the leap to distance learning in a crisis environment. The five steps are: 1 - Schools need the right principal for the job 2 - Build the right team 3 - Identify and communicate the vision 4 - Transition gradually 5 - Do it together. My greatest hope now, in the era of COVID-19 is that educators, school leaders, and policy makers will use the lesson learned as a catalyst for change in the K-12 environment. There is so much that could be done to change the education model of the last hundred years to make it more relevant to today's learners. I wish you all well in the coming months and years in a postCOVID-19 world. 133 References About ISTE. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/about/about-iste About our District. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2020, from https://www.flvs.net/about/flvs Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward Technology Integration in the Schools: Why It Isn’t Happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education; Norfolk, 13(4), 519–546. Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ873676 Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(0), 51. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n51.2000 Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., RIpley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (2012 edition; P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care, Eds.). Dordrecht ; New York: Springer. Cole, B. V., & Sauers, N. J. (2018). Superintendents’ Perceptions of 1:1 Initiative Implementation and Sustainability. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(3), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1442754 Coleman-Prisco, V. (2016). Factors influencing faculty innovation and adoption of open educational resources in higher education. Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts. DiCerbo, K. (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(4), 502–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.931836 134 Dillon, P. A. (2017). How deeper learning and 21st century skills influenced one suburban district’s transition to 1:1 student technology. Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts. Fenton, D. (2017). Recommendations for professional development necessary for iPad integration. Educational Media International, 54(3), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2017.1384150 Furió, D., González-Gancedo, S., Juan, M.-C., Seguí, I., & Costa, M. (2013). The effects of the size and weight of a mobile device on an educational game. Computers & Education, 64, 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.015 Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to-One Technology in K–12 Classrooms: A Review of the Literature From 2004 Through 2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146564 Harris, J. (2005). Our Agenda for Technology Integration: It’s Time to Choose. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 116–122. 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. Hechter, R., & Vermette, L. A. (2014). Tech-savvy science education? Understanding teacher pedagogical practices for integrating technology in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33(1), 27–47. Higgins, P. S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The Impact of Digital Technology on Learning: A Summary for the Education Endowment Foundation (p. 52). Durham University. 135 Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.002 Islam, M. S., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). An international literature review of 1:1 computing in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 191–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833016-9271-y Jin, Y., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. A. (2017). Parents’ Perceptions of the First-Year Implementation of a One-to-One Laptop Initiative in a Midwestern High School. Computers in the Schools, 34(1–2), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1293470 Johnstone, B. (2003). Never Mind the Laptops: Kids, Computers, and the Transformation of Learning. New York: iUniverse, Inc. Kamau, L. Z. (2014). Applied behavior analysis based interventions in public schools: understandign factors that hinder adoption, implementation and maintainance. Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts. Kazi, B. H. & J. (2016, August 31). Maine 1-to-1 Computing Initiative Under Microscope Education Week. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/08/31/maine-1-to-1-computing-initiativeunder-microscope.html Keane, T., & Keane, W. (2017). Achievements and challenges: Implementing a 1:1 program in a secondary school. Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 1025–1041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9470-4 136 Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005 Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2016). Toward a Broader Understanding of Teacher Technology Integration Beliefs and Values. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(3), 309–335. Koba, M. (2015, April 28). Education tech funding soars - but is it working in the classroom? Retrieved November 25, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2015/04/28/education-techfunding-soars-but-is-it-working-in-the-classroom/ Larkin, M., Eatough, V., & Osborn, M. (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis and embodied, active, situated cognition. Theory & Psychology, 21(3), 318–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310377544 Lyytinen, K., & Damsgaard, J. (2001). What’s Wrong with the Diffusion of Innovation Theory? In M. A. Ardis & B. L. Marcolin (Eds.), Diffusing Software Product and Process Innovations (pp. 173–190). Springer US. Margolin, J., Heppen, J., Haynes, E., Ruedel, K., Meakin, J., Rickles, J., … Fellers, L. (2015). Evaluation of LAUSD’s Instructional Technology Initiative - Year 2 Report. 181. Molnar, M. (2015, February 24). Half of K-12 Students to Have Access to 1-to-1 Computing by 2015-16 - Market Brief. Retrieved November 19, 2018, from EdWeek Market Brief website: https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/half_of_k12_students_to_have_access_to_1-to-1_computing_by_2015-16_1/ 137 Moore, M., Robinson, H., Sheffield, A., & Phillips, A. (2017). Mastering the Blend: A Professional Development Program for K-12 Teachers. Journal of Online Learning Research, 3(2), 145–173. Parks, R. A., Oliver, W., & Carson, E. (2016). The Status of Middle and High School Instruction: Examining Professional Development, Social Desirability, and Teacher Readiness for Blended Pedagogy in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Online Learning Research, 2(2), 79–101. Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1189–1208. Peterson, L., & Scharber, C. (2017). Lessons From a One-to-One Laptop Pilot. Computers in the Schools, 34(1/2), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1296328 Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Edition. Simon and Schuster. Rohrbach, L. A., Graham, J. W., & Hansen, W. B. (1993). Diffusion of a School-Based Substance Abuse Prevention Program: Predictors of Program Implementation. Preventive Medicine, 22(2), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1993.1020 Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining Teacher Technology Use: Implications for Preservice and Inservice Teacher Preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103255985 Sclater, J., Sicoly, F., Abrami, P., Wade, C., & Wade, C. (2006). Ubiquitous technology integration in Canadian public schools: Year one study. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La Revue Canadienne de l’apprentissage et de La Technologie, 32(1). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/42804/ 138 Shirley, M. L., & Irving, K. E. (2015). Connected Classroom Technology Facilitates Multiple Components of Formative Assessment Practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9520-x Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2015). Interpretative phenomenological analysis as a useful methodology for research on the lived experience of pain. British Journal of Pain, 9(1), 41–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2049463714541642 Snelling, J. (2018). How LAUSD’s troubled rollout became a model for tech success. 7. Spires, H., Wiebe, E., Young, C., Hollebrands, K., & Lee, J. (2012). Towards a New Learning Ecology: Professional Development for Teachers in 1:1 Learning Environments. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 232–254. Stone, J. A. (2017). The impact of technology exposure on student perceptions of a 1:1 program. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2281–2309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9541-6 Storz, M. G., & Hoffman, A. R. (2013). Examining Response to a One-to-One Computer Initiative: Student and Teacher Voices. RMLE Online, 36(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2013.11462099 Thieman, G. (2008). Using Technology as a Tool for Learning and Developing 21st Century Skills: an Examination of Technology Use by Pre-Service Teachers with their K-12 Students. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 342–366. Tindall, L. (2009). J.A. Smith, P. Flower and M. Larkin (2009), Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 6(4), 346– 347. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880903340091 139 Topper, A., & Lancaster, S. (2013). Common Challenges and Experiences of School Districts That Are Implementing One-to-One Computing Initiatives. Computers in the Schools, 30(4), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2013.844640 Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2010). Bracketing in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Social Work, 11, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316 Varier, D., Dumke, E. K., Abrams, L. M., Conklin, S. B., Barnes, J. S., & Hoover, N. R. (2017). Potential of one-to-one technologies in the classroom: teachers and students weigh in. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 967–992. Vongkulluksn, V. W., Xie, K., & Bowman, M. A. (2018). The role of value on teachers’ internalization of external barriers and externalization of personal beliefs for classroom technology integration. Computers & Education, 118, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.009 Wagstaff, C., Jeong, H., Nolan, M., Wilson, T., Tweedlie, J., Phillips, E., … Holland, F. (2014). The Accordion and the Deep Bowl of Spaghetti: Eight Researchers’ Experiences of Using IPA as a Methodology. The Qualitative Report, 19(24), 1–15. Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Educational Technology & Society. Journal of Eductional Technology & Society, 18(2), 380–393. Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010). The End of Techno-Critique: The Naked Truth about 1:1 Laptop Initiatives and Educational Change. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(6). Retrieved from https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1611 140 Williams, N. L., & Larwin, K. H. (2016). One-to-One Computing and Student Achievement in Ohio High Schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175857 Zheng, B., Arada, K., Niiya, M., & Warschauer, M. (2014). One-to-one laptops in K-12 classrooms: voices of students. Pedagogies, 9(4), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2014.955499 Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in One-to-One Laptop Environments: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645 141 Appendix A - Semi-Structured Interview Protocol - Teachers Institution: _____________________________________________________ Participants (Title and Name): ______________________________________ Researcher: _____________________________________________________ Date: _____________________________________ Location of Interview: ____________________________________ Research question: The overarching research question for this study is: What are the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 initiative at a large, urban high school in the southeastern United States? Part I: Background questions • Describe your role during the 1:1 initiative at High School? • How long had you been in that role? • What is your current role now in the school or district? • (For administrators or instructional coaches) What subject(s) did you teach prior to becoming an administrator or instructional coach? • How long have you been a teacher within LCPS? Part II: Initiative Questions The next questions will be about communication • How did you learn about the 1:1 initiative? • Think back to when the 1:1 initiative began. What one to three words would you use to describe the communication about this program? • What communication did you receive about the 1:1 initiative, and who mostly delivered that information? • How did the messaging you received about the program impact your willingness to embrace the 1:1 technology? The next questions will be about structure and supports • Can you describe steps that were involved before the rollout and your thoughts on its effectiveness? • Which systems of support were most useful to you during the transition to 1:1? • Which systems of support were least useful to you during the transition to 1:1? • Thinking about the transition to 1:1, what do you remember the principal did? Assistant principal? Instructional coaches? • How do you feel their involvement impacted the transition to 1:1? • If you were in charge of a school implementing 1:1…, what would you make sure happened? Before, Beginning, Throughout The next questions will be about implementation • Describe your feelings about the program during the first year of implementation? • If someone asked you to create a flow chart or other visual of the first year of implementation, what would you create? 142 • • • • • • • What elements of the 1:1 implementation were unique to High School when compared to the rest of the district? What types of training and professional development opportunities did you participate in during the 1:1 implementation? What professional development supports were most beneficial? What was the least beneficial? What areas do you feel you could have used more support than you received? On a scale of 1-5, 1 being the least prepared and 5 being the most prepared, how would you rate your preparedness to implement 1:1 technology? Why? Suppose I am a new teacher that will be beginning my first year in a 1:1 environment. What should I expect? What can I do to prepare for 1:1 implementation? What would a “perfect” implementation of 1:1 technology look like? The next questions will be about role of the district • Why do you think the district moved to 1:1? In other words, what was the overarching purpose? • If you were in charge of informing new teachers about the 1:1 initiative, what would you say? • If you were in charge of informing parents about the 1:1 initiative, what would you say? • If you were in charge of informing new students about the 1:1 initiative, what would you say? • Given the continued funding and support of the 1:1 program at the district level, what do you see in regards to the future the program at the school level? What additional funding or supports are needed to continue the program? The next questions will be about the impact of the initiative • In what ways did the 1:1 initiative change your school? • In what ways did the 1:1 initiative change how your teachers teach? • In what ways did the 1:1 initiative change the jobs of the administrators and instructional coaches? • In what ways did the 1:1 initiative change how students learn? • In your opinion, how has the 1:1 program impacted student achievement? The next questions will be about your assessment or thoughts about how the initiative went overall • Tell me about a time or an experience that exemplifies what occurred at as a result of 1:1. • How do you define success in a 1:1 program? Do you feel the 1:1 program was successful at High School? What evidence do you have to support your opinion? • In order to build a complete picture of this program, is there anyone else you want to share about the 1:1 initiative? • Do you have any additional questions or comments that you would like to share? Thank you for your participation today and for being willing to answer my questions. If I have any follow-up questions or need clarification, then I will reach out to you. If you have any further questions, please reach out to me. Thank you for your participation in this study. I am ending the recording now. 143 Appendix B - Semi-Structured Interview Protocol – Admin and Instructional Coaches Institution: _____________________________________________________ Participants (Title and Name): ______________________________________ Researcher: _____________________________________________________ Date: _____________________________________ Location of Interview: ____________________________________ Research question: The overarching research question for this study is: What are the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 initiative at a large, urban high school in the southeastern United States? Part I: Background questions • How long have you been a(n) teacher, administrator or instructional for this school/district? • Describe your role during the 1:1 initiative at High School? • How long had you been in that role? Part II: Initiative Questions The next questions will be about the role of the district • In your own words, can you describe the district’s 1:1 initiative? • Why do you think the district moved to 1:1? In other words, what was the overarching purpose or goal The next questions will be about communication • How did you learn about the 1:1 initiative? • Prior to the implementation of the 1:1 initiative, what was the communication process about the initiative? • Who was the main leader in communication regarding the 1:1 initiative? • What communication did you receive about the 1:1 initiative and who mostly delivered that information? • How did the communication and information you received about the program impact your willingness to embrace the 1:1 technology? The next questions will be about structure and supports • Please describe the key considerations you had prior to the roll out of the 1:1 initiative? • What systems and support were most important in your eyes to ensure long-term and short-term success of the program? Why? • Which systems of support did you feel were most useful to the teachers and students during the transition to 1:1? • Which systems of support did you feel were less useful to the teachers and students during the transition to 1:1, or may not have had a high return on investment? • What role did the school leadership team (including the principal, assistant principals, and instructional coaches) play in the 1:1 implementation? • How do you feel the school leadership team impacted the transition to 1:1? • If you were to guide a different school in implementing a 1:1 initiative, what would you recommend in terms of internal structures and supports? 144 The next questions will be about implementation • Describe your feelings about the program during the first year of implementation? • What three words would you use to describe the first year of 1:1 initiative implementation? • What elements of the 1:1 implementation were unique to High School when compared to the rest of the district? • What types of training and professional development opportunities were most beneficial to your staff during the 1:1 implementation? What was the least beneficial? • What areas do you feel the staff could have used more support than they received? • In what ways were the teachers prepared to implement 1:1 technology in their classrooms? • In what ways were the teachers not prepared to implement 1:1 technology in their classrooms? • Suppose I am a new administrator in your position that will be beginning my first year in a 1:1 environment. What should I expect? What can I do to prepare for 1:1 implementation? • Suppose I am a new teacher that will be beginning my first year in a 1:1 environment. What should I expect? What can I do to prepare for 1:1 implementation? • What would a “perfect” implementation of 1:1 technology look like? • Given the continued funding and support of the 1:1 program at the district level, what do you see in regards to the future the program at the school level? What additional funding or supports are needed to continue the program? The next questions will be about the impact of the initiative • In what ways did the 1:1 initiative change your school? • In what ways did the 1:1 initiative change how your teachers teach? • In what ways did the 1:1 initiative change the jobs of the administrators and instructional coaches? • In what ways did the 1:1 initiative change how students learn? • In your opinion, how has the 1:1 program impacted student achievement? The next questions will be about your assessment or thoughts about how the initiative went overall • Tell me about a time or an experience that exemplifies what occurred at as a result of 1:1. • How do you define success in a 1:1 program? Do you feel the 1:1 program was successful at Laurel High School? What evidence do you have to support your opinion? • In order to build a complete picture of this program, is there anything else you want to share about the 1:1 initiative? Do you have any additional questions or comments that you would like to share? Thank you for your participation today and for being willing to answer my questions. If I have any follow-up questions or need clarification, then I will reach out to you. If you have any further questions, please reach out to me. I am ending the recording now. 145 Appendix C - Screening Phone Call Script Hello. My name is Taylor Plumblee, and I am a doctoral student at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. Thank you for expressing interest in participating in my research study on administrators’, teachers’ and administrators’ experiences with 1:1 implementation at Laurel High School. The goal of this study is to explore the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who participated in the first year implementation of the 1:1 laptop program. The goal is to share lessons learned through this process with other schools who may be considering a 1:1 implementation of their own. As the researcher, I will be conducting this study and the interview(s). At this time, I would like to ask you a few questions to determine if you are eligible to participate. If you are eligible, then I will provide additional details about the study so that you can make a decision about participating. If you decide to participate, then we will set a later time to conduct the interview. 1. Were you employed full-time as a teacher, instructional coach, or administrator at the study site during the 2014-2015 school year? (If yes, proceed to question 2; If no, proceed to “not eligible statement”). 2. Were you employed for the entire 2015-2016 school year at the study site during the first year of implementation? (If yes, proceed to question 3; If no, proceed to “not eligible statement”). 3. Are you willing to participate in a minimum of one 60-90 minute face-to-face interview, with the possibility of a second follow-up interview if it is necessary to capture additional information? (If yes, proceed to question 5; If no, proceed to “not eligible statement”). 4. Do you agree to the use of audio recording of the interview(s)? (If yes, proceed to question 6; If no, proceed to “not eligible statement”). 5. Do you agree to the publication of the data collected and analysis from this study? (If yes, proceed to “accept participant statement”; If no, proceed to “not eligible statement”). Accept participant statement: Based upon your answers, I am pleased to tell you that you meet all of the criteria for participation in this study. Now, I’d like to provide a brief overview of the study, and you can let me know if you are still interested in participating (proceed to study overview). Not eligible statement: I’m sorry, but based on your response(s) you do not qualify to participate in this study. Thank you for your interest and time. Goodbye. Study overview: The purpose of this study is to understand the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who participated in the first year implementation of a 1:1 laptop program at a large, urban high school. The goal is to share lessons learned through this process with other schools who may be considering a 1:1 implementation of their own. 146 Your participation will require one 60-90 minute face-to-face interview, with the possibility of a second interview. You will also be asked to review findings from the study to confirm accuracy, which may take an additional 20-30 minutes. Do you have any questions about the purpose of the study or the research question? (If yes, answer questions and proceed with script; If no, proceed with script) Are you interested in participating in the study? (If yes, proceed with script; If no, thank them for their time and end call). Thank you for agreeing to participate in this important study. I would like to go ahead and schedule an interview at your earliest convenience. I can meet you on campus or at a location of your choosing. Please let me know your choice. As mentioned previously, the interview will last approximately 60-90 minutes, and a second interview may be required to capture additional information. (Select date, time, and location of interview) Thank you, and I look forward to our interview! 147 Appendix D - Research Participation Request Dear Current and Former Laurel High School Teachers, Administrators, and Instructional Coaches, I would like to invite you to join a study titled “Lessons Learned: An IPA Study of Administrators’, Instructional Coaches’, and Teachers’ Experiences with 1:1 Implementation at a Southeastern United States Urban High School.” This research study has been approved by Northeastern University the LCPS Research, Accountability, and Grants department. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to understand the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have participated in the first-year implementation of a program that provided one laptop per student, hereafter referred to as a 1:1 laptop program at Laurel High School. The goal is to share the lessons learned through this process with other schools who may be considering implementing a 1:1 program. The following research question will be addressed: RQ1: What are the experiences of teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches who have successfully implemented and sustained a 1:1 initiative at a large, urban high school in the southeast? Who: The primary investigator is Dr. Hattie L. Hammonds, a faculty member in the College of Professional Studies at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. I am the student researcher and a doctoral student at Northeastern University. I am seeking the following people to participate in the study. Research Participants Administrators, Instructional Coaches, and Teachers who worked at l High School during both the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. Number of Participants Needed 5-8 Research Activity Total Time Commitment Face-to-face Approximately 1 hour Please contact me at [email protected] if you are interested in participating in this study. Thank you! Taylor Plumblee Doctoral Candidate, Northeastern University 148 Appendix E - Informed Consent Northeastern University, College of Professional Studies Department Name of Investigator(s): Dr. Hattie Hammonds, Principal Investigator and Taylor Plumblee, Student Researcher Title of Project: Lessons Learned: An IPA Study of Administrators’, Instructional Coaches’, and Teachers’ Experiences with 1:1 Implementation at a Southeastern United States Urban High School Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Study We are inviting you to take part in a research study. This form will tell you about the study, but the researcher will explain it to you first. You may ask this person any questions that you have. When you are ready to make a decision, you may tell the researcher if you want to participate or not. You do not have to participate if you do not want to. If you decide to participate, the researcher will ask you to sign this statement and will give you a copy to keep. Why am I being asked to take part in this research study? You are being invited to participate in a research study on 1:1 digital device implementation due to your involvement with the 1:1 program at Laurel High School. Why is this research study being done? In this research study, we are seeking to uncover lessons learned during the year prior to 1:1 implementation (2014-2015), and during the first year of the 1:1 program at Laurel High School (2015-2016). What will I be asked to do? If you decide to participate, you will be asked to participate in a one face-to-face interview, with the possibility of a second interview. You will also be asked to review transcripts to confirm accuracy. Audio recordings will be taken. You can stop participating at any time. Where will this take place and how much of my time will it take? You will be interviewed at a time and place that is convenient for you. The interview will take about one hour. You will also be asked to review transcripts to confirm accuracy, which may take an additional 20-30 minutes. Will there be any risk or discomfort to me? The anticipated risks to you are very low. In order to maintain anonymity and confidentiality for all participants and protect you from any possible retaliation within your workplace, or any potential impact on your career, I will use a pseudonym for the district, school, and you. You are free to decline from answering any question if you feel uncomfortable for any reason. Additionally, you are free to withdraw from the study at any time. Will I benefit by being in this research? There is no direct benefit to your participation in this study. However, others may benefit in the 149 future from the information we find in this study. Who will see the information about me? Your part in this study will be confidential. Only the researchers on this study and the transcription service will see the information about you. No reports or publications will use information that can identify you in any way or any individual as being of this project. We will take the following steps to keep your information private, and to protect it from unauthorized disclosure, tampering, or damage: ● You are free to decline from answering any question if you feel uncomfortable for any reason. ● Individuals’ data will only be accessible by myself, the principal investigator, and the professional transcription service. ● Files with your information will be de-identified and pseudonyms will be used in place of participant’s names. ● A Transcript Confidentiality Statement will be signed by the professional transcription company to ensure the confidentiality of participants In rare cases, authorized people may request to see research information about you and other people in this study. This is done only to be sure that the research is done properly. We would only permit people who are authorized by organizations such as the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board to see this information. What will happen if I suffer any harm from this research? No special arrangements will be made for compensation or for payment for treatment solely because of your participation in this research. Can I stop my participation in this study? Participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right not to participate at all or to leave the study at any time. Deciding not to participate or choosing to leave the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled, and it will not harm your relationship with l County Public Schools. Please notify the researcher verbally or in writing if you wish to withdraw from the study. Who can I contact if I have questions or problems? If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact Taylor Plumblee at 407232-0688 or email at [email protected] the person mainly responsible for the research. You may also contact Dr. Hattie Hammonds, the Principal Investigator, at [email protected]. Who can I contact about my rights as a participant? If you have any questions about your rights in this research, you may contact Nan C. Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, Mail Stop: 560-177, 360 Huntington Avenue, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. Tel: 617.373.4588, Email: [email protected]. You may call anonymously if you wish. 150 Will I be paid for my participation? No incentives are available for your participation. Will it cost me anything to participate? There is no cost to participate. I agree to take part in this research. ____________________________________________ Signature of person agreeing to take part ____________________________________________ Printed name of person above ____________________________________________ Signature of person who explained the study to the participant above and obtained consent ____________________________________________ Printed name of person above ________________________ Date ________________________ Date 151 Appendix F - Human Subject Training Certificate 152 Appendix G - Assurance of Principal Investigator