Date of Award

Summer 6-12-2019

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

EdD Education Leadership, Management and Policy

Department

Education Leadership, Management and Policy

Advisor

Martin Finkelstein, Ph.D.

Committee Member

Rong Chen, Ph.D.

Committee Member

Jan Furman, Ed.D.

Keywords

coaching, 1:1, technology, integration

Abstract

Current research has reported the benefits of integrating technology into the learning experience for students to promote greater engagement and collaboration. Schools across the country have begun implementing one-to-one learning environments in which each student uses a mobile computing device. However, use of technology in the classroom has failed to produce the expected transformational benefits. In order for technology to be integrated effectively, current research suggests that teacher pedagogy must adjust to the one-to-one classroom approach, and requires professional development to facilitate growth in their instructional practices while integrating technology. Research shows that coaches working one-to-one with teachers can be effective in bringing about the evolution of instructional practice needed to reap the benefits of technological integration in the classroom.

The purpose of this quantitative study is to determine the extent to which access to a technology coach or technology integration specialist affects the instructional practices of teachers in a 1:1 environment. This study builds on the research of Joyce and Showers (2002) and Knight (2007), which illustrated the effect of coaching on teachers, though not in the context of teachers’ ability to innovate instruction in a 1:1 environment. This study’s sample consisted of 320 certified middle school and high school teachers from sixteen middle schools and sixteen high schools in New Jersey that reported using a 1:1 teaching approach. Each participating teacher completed a 49-question survey, including 9 questions related to the quantity and type of coaching teachers received in the last twelve months, teachers’ professional and personal characteristics (including years of teaching experience, teacher content area, grade level, and gender), and the schools’ organizational characteristics, including school size and type. It also included 40 questions that measure the level of teaching innovation with technology using the Levels of Teaching Innovation (LoTi ) survey.

The results of the study revealed no statistically significant difference in level of technology integration as measured by LoTi between the teachers who had technology coaches and those who did not. The other control variables, personal characteristics and organizational characteristics, failed to yield a statistically significant difference, with the exception of medium- sized schools. However, while the association between coaching and technology integration did not attain statistical significance, the findings suggested that who had coaches were likely to score higher levels on the emerging categories of the LoTi instrument: awareness, exploration, and infusion. This study also revealed that over 90% of teachers reported meeting with their coaches only several times per month or less frequently. Furthermore, close to 80% of teachers surveyed reported meeting with coaches for a duration of less than one hour per month. These results indicate that if schools choose to invest in a technology coach, the continued involvement of administrators is needed ensure the effective use of technological coaching as a tool to facilitate innovating instruction in a 1:1 environment. Coaches must be included as part of an interdisciplinary and cross-curricular team of professional development providers. This inclusion increases the probability that teachers acquire an understanding of the interrelatedness of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, which in turn allows them to integrate technology into their teaching in more relevant and meaningful ways.

Download

Share

COinS