Candidate Statement
Our experience living in a digital world, with access to the Internet and digital technologies, allows us to
share information and knowledge. Since my first year as a high school teacher, I have questioned what it meant to integrate computer technology in K-12 classrooms, asking whether it was, or continues to be, simply another tool to differentiate and sort students rather than to help them achieve mastery of concepts and ideas. In particular, and given the political emphasis on making technology more available in K-12 schools (e.g., digital literacy, 21st century schools, etc.), it seemed important to move beyond simply handing teachers and students iPads and Chromebooks.
For example, in my last position in educational technology, I had the opportunity to work with teachers
to integrate digital technologies in their classrooms. I had trained teachers to use SmartBoards, including the proprietary software SmartNotebook, and to use iPads, including the apps particular to K-12 education. The feedback from teachers indicated a significant distinction between: (1) knowing how to use digital technology and (2) knowing how to effectively incorporate digital technology into instructional practice.
At present, my primary goal is to build upon the present state of knowledge about digital technology
integration in K-12 schools. In particular, I wish to apply instructional design theories to understand and improve the pedagogical practices with these technologies that could (and should) impact student learning. Frick (1996) had offered the clearest definition of technology (computerized or not) integration in the classroom, that which “is best used in education for teaching and learning activities that are not possible without it” (p. 5). It is this research pursuit where I hope to make a significant contribution to our field.
A driving motivation for conducting technology education research rests on examining assumptions about the
qualities of technology devices to increase student achievement (Cuban, 2001; Ertmer, 2005; Hammond, 2014). My primary goal is to examine the connection between instructional theory and pedagogical practice, including making explicit the values that tend to hide alternative perspectives about the role of technology in education, particularly with regard to instruction. Research should promote critical reflection and aid in understanding how best to apply technology in a classroom; research too often relies exclusively on surveys and descriptive statistics that measure the number of devices available, frequency of use, hours of teacher training, and comfort-level with technology (Frick, 2015; Hammond, 2010).
Further, I hope my research contribution will provoke discussions about why technology has been integrated
into the school curriculum, what purpose it should serve, and when it is appropriate to use. Although a radical analysis of school curriculum unearths theories (structural, political, reproductive, and discursive) that can reveal particular reasons for the need for school reform (Au, 2011; Apple, 2008; Koh, 2004; Levin, 2008), such analyses do not seem to provide direction for school leaders about how, when, and why to choose a particular instructional technology. Instead, applying instructional theories can help to explain the present discourse about technology integration and evaluate the link between education and the global economy (e.g., 21st century skills) and critically examine the presumption that technology is the educational tool for successful student achievement. School leaders tend to claim that decision-making should be guided by and based on scholarly research (Davies & West, 2014; Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003). If true, then I hope to facilitate our understanding about the relation between research knowledge and practical knowledge and how each can inform the other.
The following is an outline of my progress undertaken to develop the competencies for scholarship,
teaching, and service. In addition, the progress indicated provides the detail about the direction taken to achieve these competencies.
My progress toward achieving competency as a research scholar has evolved along with my research
interests. Especially important in promoting my development has been participating with Dr. Krista Glazewski’s Case-based Reasoning research group and later with Drs. Thomas Brush, Kyungbin Kwon and Glazewski’s PBL research groups. In each, I have collaborated with colleagues in the process of developing literature reviews, constructing research questions, designing research methods, conducting analyses, and justifying implications. My confidence with research design and practice has risen and fallen and risen again in an iterative process of struggling to grasp, articulate, and reflect on the theoretical concepts in the Instructional Design and Technology field. The process has been rewarding in that I have clarified my research pursuit to study technology integration.
In Professor Elizabeth Boling’s R711 course, my first literature review, What Do We Know about the
Effects on Student Learning When Mobile Touchscreen Devices Have Been Implemented in K-12 Classrooms, was an effort to tell the current state of knowledge regarding mobile tablet technology and its relation to K-12 student learning gains. The review highlighted the attributes of tablet devices and the presumption that their implementation increased learning could be realized through student and teacher perceptions. The gaps in the literature included a lack of studies based on theoretical knowledge, the influences of tablet design on learning, and an overreliance on user perceptions. Although the literature illuminated a better understanding about the features of mobile devices, it fell short of fully addressing how best to apply and use the devices as an instructional tool. More importantly, I was able to shift from broad questions about technology integration that were informed by my personal experience and realize instead that the focus was not just about helping teachers become familiar with the qualities of particular devices. Subsequent coursework and conversations with other IST faculty guided my deeper understanding of the Instructional Design and Technology field. Professor Boling, especially when she taught two semesters of R695, revealed the need to delve more deeply to explore my own knowledge claims as well as those of the authors cited in the literature review. Further reflection revealed a need to look at teacher use of technology.
Dr. Glazewski challenged my own researcher assumptions in order to broaden and strengthen the
focus of my research perspective. My experience in Dr. Glazewski’s Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) research group established the groundwork for conducting thorough research on pre-service teaches in the W200 Using Computers in Education course. For example, I became immersed in the activities of conducting research, including building a proposal and identifying research questions, writing a literature review, designing a research study, carrying out interviews, analyzing data, developing and refining assertions, and reviewing again all the elements of the research process. This activity also included engaging in critical reflection where our group discussed our research agenda with other IST colleagues during a poster presentation at the AECT conference in Jacksonville, Florida, in fall 2014. When considering technology integration, I began to question how it was supported in the classroom. This led to other questions, including why it seemed that school funds were available despite shrinking school district budgets, as well as other considerations, including the role school leaders play to manifest and assess technology integration. It became important to step away from the classroom context, and examine the resources that support technology in classrooms.
During a meeting with Dr. Brush about planning my first-authored study, he shared a 1998 study he
conducted with Dr. Susan Bannon, Characteristics of Technology Leaders: A Survey of School Administrators in the United States, about what K-12 administrators considered the primary role(s) of technology leaders. One key aspect from Dr. Brush’s study was the promise of ubiquitous computer technology in U.S. K-12 schools, which is a realization today. Not only schools but many families also can purchase mobile computer technology devices. I was interested in finding out whether the results and implications of the 1998 survey would be similar or different to the role of technology leaders today. I wrote a second literature review, Characteristics of K-12 Technology Leaders: Their Role in Technology Integration. The findings in the literature indicated that technology leaders are expected to evaluate the qualities of a certain technology without engaging in the demands of classroom practice (Sugar & Hollomon, 2009), to show how technology can achieve higher test scores (Virginia Department of Education, 2008), and to collaborate with teachers to make technology part of the instructional practice (Shattuck, 2010; Vavasseur & MacGregor, 2008). In addition, there also appeared to be a need for more explicitly defined instructional theories about technology integration (Faris and Selber, 2013; Ross, Morrison, & Lowther, 2010; Sugar, 2005). These gaps also indicated contradictory assumptions that might explain the competing responsibilities of technology leaders in K-12 schools. There is a tension between technological knowledge and instructional knowledge, the priorities of which appear to make distinct the roles between technology leaders and instructional leaders. There is no consensus regarding what instructional technology leadership means (Davies & West, 2014; Ross, Morrison, Lowther, 2010) a term that appears to be interchangeable with educational technology leadership, instructional design, e-leadership, and so forth. So, the role instructional technology leaders actually play in light of the technology expectations of school leaders seems to be unclear to the school leaders themselves.
Searching for popular interpretations for technology integration seemed to be another appropriate step
to grasp how public school leaders, including building principals, district planning directors, and district superintendents, might tend to view the construct. An article in K-12 Tech Decisions, Napa School Is a Model for Tech Integration In K-12, defined technology integration as access and proximity to technology that is “always within reach [of students] and it’s just another tool students use to complete assignments and work together on projects.” Another article, What Every Teacher Needs to Know About Technology Integration, emphasized how to use technology and teacher comfort level, claiming that “[t]echnology is most effective when students enjoy using it,” and recommending creating a student survey "to gauge student interest in the tools [the teacher is] using.” The problem is that student interest in a tool is not the same as explaining best practices for how teachers instruct with technology. The assumption seems to be that teachers alone are expected to determine technology integration in the classroom (Cuban, 2001; Davies & West, 2014; Ertmer, 2005; Hammond, 2014), and that school and school districts support this teacher expectation through professional development programs (Sims & Koszalka, 2008; Sugar, 2005; Vavasseur & MacGregor, 2008). If professional development is an important resource for teachers, and through them the realization of technology integration in the classroom, it seemed necessary to step back from the classroom and examine the sources that support teacher development.
Although a public school district superintendent is not directly responsible for leading professional
development workshops related to using technology in the classroom (Virginia Department of Education, 2008), their primary role is to manage financial resources and personnel (Virginia Department of Education, 2008; Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003). In other words, the superintendents determine the purpose and function of professional development and the role that staff members serve to support teachers. Even the staff who deliver professional development do not necessarily lead discussions about how best to modify pedagogical practices (Sugar & Hollom, 2009). Furthermore, there is little evidence to suggest that public school principals have any role in helping teachers integrate technology into their classroom (Shattuck, 2010). Therefore, if a superintendent is ultimately responsible for directing the training of, and providing support for, K-12 teachers to realize technology integration in the classroom, then it seemed reasonable to examine what they understood technology integration to mean.
Attending technology conferences provided the backdrop to flesh out how to conduct my first-
authored study. The opportunity allowed me to share the progress undertaken to develop the research elements. On March 6, 2015, I presented a roundtable discussion of my literature review at the 2015 IST Conference and elicited questions about enlisting participants for the survey. On May 15, 2015, I presented a revised abstract of the research proposal at the Indiana Chief Technology Officers (CTO) Council Statewide Conference at the Indiana University Memorial Union. The CTO conference served as an opportunity to relate technology leadership to technology integration and situate why the topic was important to study. I explained that Dr. Yu-Chang Hsu (2013) examined six Social Science Citation-indexed journals and had identified clusters of productivity in Educational Technology Research. Fewer than ten percent of the articles she sampled examined the macro view of technology integration and primarily looked at barriers to integrating technology. Furthermore, Hsu identified that fewer than five published articles focused on learning styles, learning objects, multimedia, computer-assisted language, and technology adoption. Although researchers can examine the rate that an innovation has been adopted, the quality of that adoption may be more important to understand than simply counting how many people have adopted it (Rogers, pp. 372-373).
Finally, in October 2015, I submitted for IRB review my survey instrument. In November 2015, I
presented at AECT in Indianapolis and discussed the research methods employed, including sharing a sample of the survey questions derived from working closely with an expert panel enlisted to review the original Brush and Bannon (1998) 62-item survey instrument. Although only fifteen experts were garnered to refine and revise the instrument, my first-authored study will serve as a prototype to be polished going forward. The plan is to improve the survey instrument further and apply it to a later study with a larger number of participants. In the first study, the participants are Indiana public school superintendents whose function is to provide the form technology integration will take as indicated by the role(s) they emphasize as important for an instructional technology leader. A draft of the research study is here.
Prior to enrolling at IU, I had garnered several years of teaching and administrative experience,
including teaching high school English, adult English as a Second Language (ESL), and computer technologies. In each environment, the institution of education as well as the teachers and students within it faced changes in culture, technology, and demographics. My awareness then of instructional systems technology was about how to realize it in the classroom and then evaluate its impact. Often, many of the administrators and technology coaches proselytized that proximity to technology helped children learn better. “Look how quickly students take to it.” On the other hand, why did it appear difficult, as Professor Boling had described, to convince teachers - many of whom clamored to garner post-it notes, paper clips and paper - that technology could expand and deepen their instructional practice? At my last school, I helped K-12 teachers develop new avenues to deliver instruction but without being involved in changing their pedagogical practice.
At IU, I had the opportunity to teach W200: Using Computers in Education under the coordination of
Dr. Anne Leftwich in the Spring 2014 semester. The W200 lessons were designed to help students acquire the skills, practice and principles to teach K-12 courses using computer applications. I learned to work with undergraduate students to develop their professional websites, to become literate with digital tools currently used in many U.S. classrooms, and to evaluate the appropriateness of digital technologies for instruction. The experience increased my depth and range as an instructor to apply a variety of technologies to facilitate student learning and emphasize their collaboration as the focus of learning. Later, in the Summer 2014 semester, I served as a teaching assistant for R547: Computer Mediated Learning, which was taught online under the direction of Dr. Rodney Myers. R547 emphasized the design process to help students develop a web-based instructional project using David Merrill’s First Principles of Design. Although I had three years of online course experience as a student, it was my first opportunity as an instructor. The essential reflection was the importance of providing timely feedback to students, which necessitated recognizing the differences among students and providing responses that reinforced the ideas in their discussion posts. The students' discussion posts and replies demonstrated increasing understanding of the course concepts as they discovered solutions while applying Merrill’s 5 Start Instructional Design Rating.
During the Spring 2016 semester, I will co-teach R690: Application of Research Methods to IST Issues
with Dr. Glazewski. I had completed R690 in the Fall 2013 semester with Dr. Glazewski as a student, and look forward to improving my research perspective. The experience also should develop further a competency to provide graduate level instruction and cultivate the necessary mentoring responsibilities. It is one thing to be able to analyze and reflect on my research skills but quite another to do so for other graduate students. I hope to be able to provide meaningful guidance and communication that promotes the students’ research competencies, including evaluating published research articles, critiquing student research proposals, and developing and strengthening research questions as well as the assertions that the questions address. All of these will hle, devising research methods, analyzing data, and developing a research narrative.
Service is not list of tasks to accomplish while completing my Ph.D. In fact, my service experience
has included providing technology support to grandparents and guardians of students who were new to using email, digital tools (e.g. Google Docs, DropBox), and school websites to monitor student academic progress. My goals for service at IU are an extension of these previous activities, which now includes supporting faculty who are expected more often to use computer technology as part of their instructional practice. In addition, engaging in a commitment to service bridges my research and teaching knowledge by helping me to stay abreast of emerging instructional and technological trends as well as broadens my research perspective by allowing me to contribute to the IST department, the IST field, and the wider educational community.
In Fall 2013, I began my first graduate assistantship working as co-lab manager in the Teach Tech
Lab (TTL), providing instructional technology support to undergraduates enrolled in the W200 course. I also created job aids, checked out equipment, and facilitated student projects. Since arriving at IU, I have volunteered each year at the IST Conference, 2014 and 2015, serving as chair to provide technology support, and again in 2016, serving as co-chair to train IST doctoral students who are new to the conference responsibilities. I also worked with the volunteer committee chairs to train undergraduate volunteers, helping to coordinate their volunteer activities with their W200 course instructors. Beginning in 2014, I am continuing to serve my second graduate assistantship with the Instructional Consulting (IC) Office with Dr. Karen Hallett-Rupp. In addition to providing instructional technology support to faculty and AIs, I also have created job-aids, conducted face-to-face and online workshops, deliver classroom presentations, assisted in course development and the transition from OnCourse to Canvas, and helped to trouble-shoot software and hardware for personal as well as IU devices. This experience has helped me to build a positive connection with our IST community on and off campus. Furthermore, working in the IC office revealed the distinction between technology support and instructional technology support.
For my minor subject of study, educational leadership, I began serving an internship in Fall 2015 with
Dr. Judy DeMuth, superintendent of the Monroe County Community Schools Corporation. This experience has allowed me to meet regularly with district leaders in plant operations, food services, transportation, and technology support as well as with building principals at each of the elementary, middle, and high school levels. I participated with the e-learning director and chief financial officer to develop an analysis of the total cost of technology ownership, assessing the financial impact when schools own technology devices and manage the infrastructure that supports it. The data helped provide an overview of the sustained costs associated with integrating technology throughout the school corporation. This experience adds another perspective regarding barriers to technology.
My primary focus area is on technology integration in K-12 schools, where the technology complements
instructional practices that not only achieve intentional learning outcomes (Davies & West, 2014) but also unlocks pedagogical opportunities that would not have been realized without integrating technology (Hammond, 2010; Frick, 1996). This focus reveals an important distinction between technological pedagogy and instructional pedagogy. To use IU School of Education as an example: Educational Technology Services (ETS) functions to repair/ replace equipment and maintain the technology infrastructure, primarily Internet connectivity. The Office of Instructional Consulting (IC) functions to show teachers how to use technology as part of their instructional practice, but not necessarily to model how to teach with technology. Hew and Brush (2007) explained the importance to 1) address the needs of teachers and the context of their practice, and 2) engage teachers in active learning that focuses on technological skills, technological pedagogical skills, and classroom management skills for integrating technology. So, the primary question is that if technology leaders do not provide instructional support, and instructional leaders do not provide technological support, who then provides instructional technology support?
To enable me to develop a range of research competencies, I have participated in three research
groups, including Case-Based Reasoning with Dr. Glazewski, Problem-Based Learning at the secondary level with Dr. Brush and Dr. Kwon, and Problem-Based Learning at the post-secondary level with Dr. Hmelo-Silver and Dr. Glazewski. Each of the research groups have prompted critical discussions and reflection to understanding the meaning behind social activities we have observed. I also have communicated with Dr. Brush often to reflect on developing scholarly knowledge which, hopefully, will make explicit the background assumptions that drive K-12 school leadership decision-making. For example, in a discussion with a former superintendent who served on my expert panel for the first-authored study, she explained that she had removed the teaching of handwriting from the school curriculum because she assumed that digital devices would replace it anyway. Thomas Edison had proclaimed famously that motion pictures would eventually replace books. Although this was not the case in the years that followed, the growing assumption about the inevitability of technology to replace printed texts could make Edison’s statement prophetic.
-
Ability to review and synthesize literature
Completed: I have completed two major literature reviews and have identified gaps in the
literature that has helped develop my primary research focus
-
Ability to write research proposal and design conduct research studies
Completed: I have written a research proposal abstract, have developed a survey instrument, applied for and received IRB approval, and have begun collecting data. In early spring 2016, I plan to complete convenience sample telephone interviews and finalize the research study for publication.
-
Develop scholarly writing and presentation skills
Completed: I have completed an article critique for Dr. Glawseski's R690 course. In addition, I have participated in a poster session for the Case-based Reasoning research study at the 2014 AECT Conference and have actively presented my research at three different conference sessions, including the 2015 IST Conference, the 2015 Indiana CTO Conference, and the 2015 AECT Conference.
-
Knowledge of theories related to IST
Completed: I’ve completed foundational coursework in the Instructional Systems Technology Ph.D. program, including knowledge of core theories and their application to my participation in three IST research groups, two assistant teaching posts (R547 & R690), and working as an assistant instructor (W200).
-
Knowledge of appropriate methods for qualitative research in educational settings
Completed: I will have completed the foundational coursework in both the inquiry core and the Educational Leadership minor. Also, I have practiced conducting preliminary observation and informal interviews at public school sites, which include school district administrators, technology directors and coaches, building principals, and classroom teachers.
-
Apply research methods in appropriate contexts
Completed: I have collected data that has applied both qualitative and quantitative methods, including discussion and practice in research groups, coursework, and in my first-authored study, including providing descriptive statistics and conducting interviews and observations
-
Acquire pedagogy and content knowledge
In progress: In addition to having earned secondary and adult teaching credentials in Los Angeles California, I have applied for an Indiana credential in Computer Education and Technology. In addition, my minor core is in Educational Leadership, which includes completing a superintendent licensure program. Further, I have completed the core IST courses, educational foundations, and am progressing to complete my minor core.
-
Mentor undergraduate and graduate students
In progress: In Fall 2013, I worked as a Lab Assistant, where I had the opportunity to assist with the completion of individual and group projects for undergraduates enrolled in W200. In the Instructional Consulting Office, I have consulted AIs regarding using digital technologies in their research as well as in their instructional practice, specifically with the Oncourse and Canvas LMSs, and I have been invited on several occasions to provide instructional technology workshops to pre-service teachers for LCLE and C&I departments. As I continue to seek additional mentoring opportunities, I will be working with Dr. Glazewski to mentor graduate students in R690.
-
Experience in course design for online environment
In progress: In summer 2014, I volunteered as a teaching assistant for Dr. Rodney Myers, learning the role and responsibilities of an online instructor. In the Instructional Consulting Office, I have consulted faculty in the SOE to use the Oncourse and Canvas tools to design and deliver course content, especially with adjunct professors and lectures who deliver their courses offsite. Often I have researched outside the IU suite of software and online tools to meet each instructor’s specific requirements, including linking external websites and applications to the Canvas architecture. In the Instructional Consulting Office, I have had opportunities to mentor AIs in the development and design of their course modules, consulting about LMS tools to support their instructional practice..
-
Teaching Experience in Undergraduate and Graduate Courses
In progress: In addition to my experience teaching post-secondary ESL course in Los Angeles, I taught undergraduate students as an associate instructor for W200 in Spring 2014. With regard to teaching graduate students, I as a volunteer assistant teacher for R547 in Summer 2014, and I shall work with Dr. Glazewski to co-teach R690 Spring 2016.
-
Service for IST Department
Completed: In Fall 2013, began service at IU working as co-lab manager in the Teach Tech Lab (TTL), creating job aids, assisting undergraduates with their course projects, and participating with other AIs, under Dr. Leftwich’s supervision, to update course content. This Spring 2014 will mark my third consecutive participation in the IST conference serving as technology support chair.
-
Service for the School of Education
Completed: Fall 2014 commenced a graduate assistantship in the Instructional Consulting Office. I have created a variety of jobs aids, consulted with staff, faculty and AIs on hardware and software technologies, developed and delivered workshops, provided technology assistance in classrooms and offices, coordinated training seminars with CITL and UITS, and edited the IC Office newsletter with ETS
-
Service for the Field of Education
Completed: In Fall 2015, I began an internship in the district superintendent’s office for Monroe County Community Schools Corporation (MCCSC). Responsibilities include meeting regularly with the superintendent, attending Professional Learning Community meetings with building principals, completing analytical tasks with the eLearning director and the director of business operations, and attending the LEADS program, which highlights the practices and responsibilities of school leaders. This experience aligns well with my primary research focus, providing the necessary context from which to develop and conduct research in K-12 schools.
The competencies listed above in concert with my prior instructional and educational technology
experience intersects with my research interests in understanding technology integration in the moral-practical sense, which contribute to a paradignmatic shift in social awareness (Frick, 2015; Parker, 2003). This shift is a central concern of ours in IST but I'm seeing it in a broader sense. The shift concerns an alternative perspective to the barriers to technology integration, namely the potential for technology to serve as a barrier to instruction. Therefore, my lifelong professional goal is to pursue research in the field of IST that broadens our understanding about the way IST is incorporated in the system of schooling children. In our field and in research areas beyond our field, we have a shared responsibility to change the way we work with school leaders and teachers to impact …
School leadership priorities can sometimes rely on facile assumptions about the inevitability of
technology to improve schools and student achievement, which if unexamined will continue to lead to Value Added Models that tend to find fault with teachers (Frick, 2015). On the other hand, who else but the decision-makers are ultimately responsible for communicating the implementation of innovations and then evaluating its impact? Even Rogers (2003) would not simply blame the diverse range of adopters, from early to late and instead rest the responsibility with those who seek to diffuse an innovation in the first place. Rather than perpetuate an atmosphere of complaint and blame, we must engage in a radical analysis of the system of schooling in general. For me, the concept of technology integration is of particular interest. It is not simply a tool to deliver instruction, nor is it simply a panacea for low scores on achievement test. I wish to understand technology integration as a value proposition, which asks what it should look like and for whom should it serve.
Becoming a faculty member at a research university would be one way to realize this goal. My
research path reveals a need to understand what technology integration is and what it should be, to reveal the gap between what instructional technology leaders do to support instruction in a K-12 classroom, and to clarify the principles that serve to guide instructional decisions about computer technology that allow teachers to determine the culturally relevant context that contributes to student learning. As well, I plan to regularly contribute to the IST field by attending conferences, discussing current and emerging concepts about our IST field, and sharing ideas and research findings with colleagues.
References
Apple, M. W. (2008). Curriculum planning: Content, form, and the politics of accountability. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (25-44). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High‐stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 25-45.
Brush, T. & Bannon, S. (1998). Characteristics of technology leaders: A survey of school administrators in the United States. International Studies in Educational Administration, 26(2), 47-56.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the class-room. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instrutional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563-580. doi: DOI 10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6
Davies, R. S. & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in schools. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed., pp. 841-850). New York, NY: Springer.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.). New York: MacMillan.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
Flanagan, L. & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142. doi:10.1108/09578230310464648
Frick, T. W. (1996). Keynote address to the International Symposium on New Technologies of Instruction National Taipei Teachers' College: Criteria for Evaluating Use of Information Technology in K-12 Education. Taipei, Taiwan: Frick. Retrieved from https://www.indiana.edu/~tedfrick/keyfrick.html
Frick, T. W. (2015, April 24). Stop punishing teachers: What we should be doing instead to improve education. Retrieved from Educology, Department of Instructional Systems Technology, School of Education http://educology.indiana.edu/Frick/StopPunishingTeachers.pdf
Hew, K. F. & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology Research and Development, 55, 223–252. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Hammond, M. (2010). What is an affordance and can it help us understand the use of ICT in education? Education and Information Technologies, 15(3), 205-217. doi: 10.1007/s10639-009-9106-z
Hammond, M. (2014). Introducing ICT in schools in English: rationale and consequences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 191-201. doi:10.1111/bjet.12033
Hsu, Y.-C., Hung, J.-L., & Ching, Y.-H. (2013). Trends of educational technology research: More than a decade of international research in six SSCI-indexed refereed journals. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(4), 685-705. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9290-9
Koh, A. (2004). Singapore education in “new times”: Global/local imperatives. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25, 335-349.
Levin, B. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (7-24). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17-35.
Shattuck, G. (2010). Understanding school leaders’ role in teachers’ adoption of technology integration classroom practices. In M. Orey, S. A. Jones, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook 35 (pp. 7-28). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1516-0_2
Sims, R. C. & Koszalka, T. A. (2008). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 569-575). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group.
Sugar, W. (2005) Instructional technologist as a coach: Impact of a situated professional development program on teachers’ technology use. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 547-571.
Virginia Department of Education. (2008). Instructional technology resource teacher: Guidelines for teachers and administrators. Richmond, VA. [Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/technology/administrators_teachers_staff/teacher_guidelines.pdf]
