STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: BEST PRACTICES IN TEACHING

IN A K-5 BLENDED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

A Dissertation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Doctor of Education

with a

Major in Educational Leadership

in the

Department of Graduate Education

Northwest Nazarene University

by

Cynthia Prouty

May 2014

Major Professor: Loredana Werth, PhD

 UMI Number: 3643786

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3643786
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT

DISSERTATION

This dissertation of Cynthia Prouty, submitted for the degree of Doctor of Education with

a major in Educational Leadership and titled "Student Engagement: Best Practices in

Teaching in a K-5 Blended Learning Environment" has been reviewed in final form.

Permission, as indicated by the signatures and dates given below, is now granted to

submit final copies.

 i

Copyright by Cynthia Prouty 2014

All Rights Reserved

 ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

There are many people in my life I would like to acknowledge for their role in this

journey; I am grateful for an opportunity to thank each one. I am indebted to my committee

comprised of Dr. Kellerer, Dr. Slemmer, and Dr. Werth, for their time and dedication to my

research. Dr. Werth, I am forever blessed by your support and encouragement throughout this

entire dissertation process. Thank you Cindy Williams and David Silva for your editing support!

My NNU cohort has been an awesome source of energy, understanding, and I appreciate their

encouragement throughout our program.

Professionally, I would like to thank Dr. Larsen and Dr. Shoop who encouraged my

pursuit of this program. Mr. Aller has been inspirational in my continued growth as an educator

and administrator.

I would like to thank the staff at Olympic Elementary School who were so helpful in the

research process and are so dedicated to improvement and professional growth. They work hard

to impact the lives of students.

My family has been the best source of support and encouragement, and I appreciate your

patience! My children, ages six and nine, have been incredibly understanding and loving while I

have been writing, traveling to Idaho for my program, and conducting research.

I am grateful to my parents whose love and support have guided me throughout my

career. I could not have completed this journey without their love and support.

Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God” (Luke 18:27).
 iii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Jim, who has been supportive of all of my

educational endeavors and pursuits! I truly appreciate your love and patience.
 iv

ABSTRACT

This study was designed to involve a variety of research methods, resulting in a mixed methods,

case study approach to investigate best teaching practices in an elementary blended learning

environment. The research-based evaluation work of Charlotte Danielson was incorporated as the

theoretical framework for this research. Differing methods of tablet use were observed in 10

classrooms while data was collected on student engagement. Blended learning is among best

teaching practices, though surprisingly, educators in this study were not familiar with blended

learning models and techniques. The term “blended learning” in the context of this K-5 study

meant utilizing different technology devices as a means to enhance teaching. Many educators are

utilizing tablets in their classrooms on a daily basis without adequate professional development.

The influx of tablets in America’s schools has not been well planned nor have professional

development opportunities provided teachers with the necessary training to fully implement and

integrate best practice in their classrooms. Findings from this study help fill the gap in elementary

level and rural area schools. Results from this research indicate that blended learning tools enrich

the elementary school classroom. Tablet usage in this study demonstrated seamless bridging all

levels of academic achievement. Students were observed utilizing metacognitive skills when

collaborating with their peers and demonstrating their learning through projects on their tablets.

Three themes emerged from the interview data. First, blended learning and the integration of

technology as a best practice supports current literature. The second theme was, professional

development, including teachers’ desire for both building- and district-level support as well as

the frequency of professional development, and teacher technology support. And third, the

school as the vehicle for teacher collaboration, differentiation for students, and engagement of

students.
 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. ii

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... iv

Chapter I: Introduction .....................................................................................................................1

Entry Vignette ......................................................................................................................1

Introduction and Background ..............................................................................................3

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................4

Research Questions .............................................................................................................7

Description of Terms ...........................................................................................................7

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................13

Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................14

Overview of Research Methods .........................................................................................15

Chapter II: Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................18

Introduction ........................................................................................................................18

Key Instructional Elements in Brick-and-Mortar Schools.................................................19

Technology and Tablets .....................................................................................................22

Blended Learning ...............................................................................................................25

Student Engagement ..........................................................................................................32

Danielson’s Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................37

 vi

Chapter II: Review of the Literature

Professional Development Related to Blended Learning ..................................................42

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................46

Chapter III: Design and Methodology ...........................................................................................48

Introduction ........................................................................................................................48

Research Design.................................................................................................................50

Participants .........................................................................................................................52

Data Collection ..................................................................................................................54

Analytical Methods ............................................................................................................63

Limitations .........................................................................................................................65

Chapter IV: Results ........................................................................................................................66

Introduction ........................................................................................................................66

Quantitative Results ...........................................................................................................68

Qualitative Results .............................................................................................................75

Summary ............................................................................................................................82

Chapter V: Conclusions .................................................................................................................86

Introduction ........................................................................................................................86

Summary of the Study .......................................................................................................88

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................97

Implications and Challenges for Professional Practices ....................................................99

Recommendations for Further Research ..........................................................................101

 vii

References ....................................................................................................................................105

Appendix A: National Institute for Health Certification .............................................................128

Appendix B: Washington District Research Approval ................................................................129

Appendix C: Pew Internet Research Survey Permission .............................................................130

Appendix D: ISTE Permission.....................................................................................................131

Appendix E: Danielson Permission .............................................................................................132

Appendix F: Christensen Permission ...........................................................................................133

Appendix G: Collins Permission .................................................................................................134

Appendix H: Ambient Insight Permission ...................................................................................137

Appendix I: NASP Permission ....................................................................................................138

Appendix J: Elsevier Permission .................................................................................................139

Appendix K: Partnership for 21st Century Skills Permission ......................................................141

Appendix L: Qualitative Informed Consent ................................................................................142

Appendix M: Verbatim Telephone Script....................................................................................145

Appendix N: Pre-survey Questions .............................................................................................146

Appendix O: Quantitative/Qualitative Online Teacher Survey ...................................................147

Appendix P: Qualitative Interview Questions #1 ........................................................................150

Appendix Q: Qualitative Interview Questions #2........................................................................151

Appendix R: Classroom Observation On-Task Data Collection .................................................152

Appendix S: Debrief Statement for Qualitative Interviews .........................................................153

Appendix T: Verbatim Instructions for Interviews ......................................................................154

 viii

Appendix U: Classroom Observations Announcement to Parents ..............................................155

Appendix V: Member Checking Email .......................................................................................156

 ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Danielson Framework for Teaching, Domain 1 ..............................................................39

Table 2. Danielson Framework for Teaching, Domain 2 ..............................................................40

Table 3. Danielson Framework for Teaching, Domain 3 ..............................................................40

Table 4. Danielson Framework for Teaching, Domain 4 ..............................................................41

Table 5. Synopsis of Data Collection.............................................................................................51

Table 6. Participant Synopsis ........................................................................................................54

Table 7. Olympic Mountain Elementary School Tablet Configuration .........................................62

Table 8. Content Validity Index (CVI) ...........................................................................................71

Table 9. Student Engagement Classroom Observations and Tablet Methodology .......................74

Table 10. Top Three Definitions of Blended Learning from Pre-survey Question 1 .....................76

Table 11. Top Three Preferred Methods of Professional Development by Frequency .................77

Table 12. Top 10 Frequency Themes from Interviews ..................................................................78

 x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Tellagami App ..................................................................................................................3

Figure 2. Blended Learning Taxonomy of Education Practice........................................................8

Figure 3. Student Engagement Model......................................................................................12, 33

Figure 4. Three Circles of the Hedgehog Concept ........................................................................20

Figure 5. Blended Learning in Relation to Other Education Practices .........................................26

Figure 6. Growth of Digital Learning ...........................................................................................28

Figure 7. International Society for Technology in Education NETS-T .........................................31

Figure 8. Triangulation of Data ....................................................................................................49

Figure 9. Triangulation of Data ....................................................................................................67

Figure 10. Overview of Quantitative and Qualitative Methodology..............................................67

Figure 11. Pre-survey, Question 1 Results.....................................................................................68

Figure 12. Pre-survey, Question 2 Results.....................................................................................69

Figure 13. Themes from Interview Data ........................................................................................79

Figure 14. Pre-survey Summary ....................................................................................................89

Figure 15. Framework for 21st Century Learning ......................................................................100

 1

Chapter I

Introduction

Entry Vignette

Ms. Smith’s first-grade public elementary school classroom has tablet devices on the

desk of each student. Little 6- and 7-year-old fingers swipe their touch tablet screens effortlessly

using the engaging technology tool to write their names and complete the morning’s entry

assignment. No one is off-task. Ms. Smith transitions into a math lesson. She reminds students

what they learned from the previous day’s math lesson and then introduces a new application

(app) called Hands-On Math, Tools for Active Teaching and Learning, Base Ten Blocks

(Ventura, 2011). Students watch Ms. Smith use her tablet via an interactive whiteboard

connected to her tablet screen. Ms. Smith demonstrates how the virtual pen in the app can be

used to make an “H” style chart for the ones, tens, and hundreds columns. Ms. Smith shows

students how to move blocks of numbers into columns and how to move single blocks into the

ones column.

Students then begin working from their individual tablets, as this classroom has one tablet

for every student. All 26 students are working on their tablet devices at their desks. Out of 26

students, there is only one student with a question. Twenty-five of the students understand the

task. When one student, Samantha, does not understand, Ms. Smith borrows Samantha’s tablet to

display her work on the interactive whiteboard for the class to see. She asks the class to help

Samantha with her math blocks. The students volunteer information about how to correct the

math problem. Ms. Smith asks Samantha to repeat what she needs to do differently, and the

student clearly understands what she is to do.

 2

Student engagement is more than being on-task. Engagement includes the student’s being

drawn into the lesson to the degree that the tools provided give students some level of control

over the pace of their own learning, as demonstrated in Ms. Smith’s first-grade class. Twenty-six

first-grade students on-task for a full 30-minute lesson, emerging from the lesson writing the

number 123, and it is only the month of October—the classroom instructional strategy appears to

engage all students.

In the fifth-grade classroom, Mr. Jones has his students working on a social studies

lesson. The students have been reading different stories about Native Americans and are

applying the lesson by making a short video explaining what they have learned. Mr. Jones has

two students per tablet (2-to-1). Through experience, Mr. Jones has determined that partnering

students with similar skills works best in his class. Mr. Jones uses the interactive whiteboard

(IW) to have students explain the different apps they can use for the assignment. One student

stands in front of the class with her tablet and demonstrates the Tellagami app (see Figure 1)

while the whole class can collectively view her screen on the IW (Tellagami Labs, 2014). On the

screen is a character who uses the student’s recorded voice so it appears as though the student is

a narrator in Tellagami. She has chosen the character’s eye color, hair color, skin tone, and other

personalized features to use for her presentation, called Gami. Another student demonstrates the

SuperHero app; yet another shows the SockPuppet app. Students choose which of the three apps

they will use and take turns reading and working with their partners to record their videos. At the

fifth-grade level, the students are leading the discussion and demonstrating higher levels of

learning, such as synthesis, as identified in Bloom’s taxonomy (Bhuyan, & Khan, 2014; Bloom,

Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956).

 3

Figure 1

Tellagami App

SOURCE: Tellagami Labs, Inc.

Introduction and Background

Student engagement is more than a child’s being on-task or immersed in an educational

task; student engagement comprises academic, cognitive, and behavioral characteristics

(Christenson, Stout, & Pohl, 2012; Eccles & Wang, 2013; Finn & Zimmer, 2013; Reeve, 2013;

Reschly & Christenson, 2013). Observable engagement is easiest to see in academic behavior

like on-task conduct, homework completion, involvement in class activities, high attendance,

great participation, and limited behavioral incidents (Christenson, Stout, & Pohl, 2012).

Increasing student engagement is a consistent goal in instruction, and one instructional technique

frequently used toward this goal is the use of technology in the classroom (Fullan, 2014;

Sheninger, 2014; Stein & Graham, 2014).

 4

Using some form of technology in the classroom is essential in this digital world: taking

attendance on the computer, using a document camera or other device to project instruction,

communicating with parents and staff members through email, maintaining classroom websites,

and using the Internet for research are some typical examples. The use of a tablet device is

becoming more common as well (Fullan, 2014; Getting & Swainey, 2012; Huang, Clark, &

Wedel, 2013; McLester, 2012; Sheninger, 2014; Stein & Graham, 2014). The integration of

tablet devices has enhanced and enriched classroom instruction. Using a tablet does not require

the ability to read, write, or have strong keyboarding skills, so even students as young as

preschool age can engage in this tactile learning method (Getting & Swainey, 2012; Huang,

Clark, & Wedel, 2013; McLester, 2012).

The extent of technology use and the types of devices employed in the classroom are

affected by the following realities:

• Technology devices are expensive.

• Stakeholders want to know if implementing tablet technology is enhancing

achievement.

Technological devices are tools that can be used as best practice in education when they are

integrated into effective pedagogical methods. Effective pedagogical practices such as Charlotte

Danielson’s (2013) frameworks for teaching (see Chapter II), in amalgamation with regularly

planned and demonstrated technological professional development instruction for teachers, could

increase the extent and effective usage of technology devices.

Statement of the Problem

Dr. Yong Zhao, author of Catching Up or Leading the Way (2009), notes that the United

States leads the way in terms of enhancing creativity, developing entrepreneurs, and creating a
 5

diverse workforce. He describes how, conversely to U.S. students, students in other nations are

intentional in developing their career interests as young as kindergarten, and the focus is shifting

away from administering standardized measurements as the primary means to assess a child’s

understanding of different content areas. There is a worldwide shift recognizing and valuing each

child as unique, and meanwhile in the U.S., a national shift has occurred toward standardization,

as 45 states in the U.S. have adopted Common Core State Standards (Danielson, 2012; Fullan,

2014; Murphy & Regenstein, 2012). Fullan (2014) says Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

have been “endorsed by over 90 percent of the states” (p. 24). Fullan refers to CCSS pressures as

“unbearable” as “tensions are growing between, on the one hand, an urge to tighten the focus

around standards and, on the other hand, a tendency to allow digital innovations to flourish”

(p. 7).

Although educational standardization is trending, a movement toward educational

individualization is also strengthening. Researchers forecast that by 2019, the offering of digital

high school classes will increase to 50% of all class offerings (Horn & Staker, 2011; Werth,

Werth, & Kellerer, 2013). Transforming education through accessible and custom blended

classes, disruptive innovation has far-reaching potential (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2011;

Horn & Staker, 2011; Werth, Werth, & Kellerer, 2013). A formal education program, blended

learning utilizes digital delivery for a portion of the learning experience, while involving a

degree of student regulation over the location, time, and pace (Christensen, Horn, & Staker,

2013; Horn & Staker, 2012; Pointek, 2013b). Of great significance in blended learning is the

ability to differentiate instruction for all levels of learners, as well as the ability to reach diverse

students (iNACOL, 2013). Educators and families may prefer the fusion of face-to-face
 6

traditional instruction with technology-based learning integration rather than purely digital

methods (Wolpert-Gawron, 2011; Pointek, 2013b; Werth, Werth, & Kellerer, 2013).

Research has shown that blended learning environments and the integration of technology

in classroom activities can be effective for many students (Beaudry, 2011; Lefton, 2012;

Richardson, 2010; Riddle, 2010; Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012; Ruiling & Overbaugh, 2009). The term

“blended learning” in the context of this K-5 study means utilizing different technology devices

as a means to enhance teaching (Christensen, Horn, & Staker, 2013; Horn & Staker, 2012;

Pointek, 2013b). However, there is a lack of digital transformation in the public school system

(Bauland, 2012; Hoyle & Kutka, 2008; Lefton, 2012; Quillen, 2010; Richardson, 2010; Riddle,

2010; Ruiling & Overbaugh, 2009).

The integration of blended learning environments and technology has been slow for several

reasons. There is no systematic way to implement technology in public schools, as funding is

variable depending on district allocations and whether teachers spend their professional

development money towards technology. A school district’s maintenance and capacity-building

progress is also a factor. Public school technology integration is varied from district to district and

state to state, though clearly a financial commitment is required to successfully deliver blended

learning options (Bauland, 2012; Chong, 2012; Hoyle & Kutka, 2008; Lefton, 2012; Riddle, 2010;

Ruiling & Overbaugh, 2009).

Although many classrooms have some type of technology, finding and adopting effective

teaching strategies is a matter of exploration, professional development, adoption on a small scale,

and having an understanding of blended learning as a method of best practice instruction. Efforts to

utilize technology in the classroom are notable, though the integration of devices into

instructional practices is often overlooked (McGee & Reis, 2012). A review of literature
 7

indicates that there is limited knowledge of both blended learning as a best teaching practice and

the need for consistent professional development in technology integration (Beaudry, 2011;

Bennett, 2012; Gathany, 2012; Lefton, 2012; Pass, 2008; Riddle, 2010; Ruiling & Overbaugh,

2009). An empirical inquiry on the role of technology is required in developing means of

instruction that are more effective than traditional methods (Johnson, 2012; Pacansky-Brock,

2013; Yin, 2014). Conducting a research-based study in a public elementary school with different

methods of tablet utilization could bridge the gap between the identification of professional

development needs in tablet technology integration and the engagement of students. In order for

students to be impacted, teachers must first know where technology fits into good pedagogy.

Research Questions

The intent of this study was to construct and explore several worthy research questions

(Creswell, 2014; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014). Educators

know that factors of engagement are indispensable to educational achievement (Finn & Zimmer,

2013). The researcher’s desire to find the best way to engage K-5 students through teaching

practices in blended learning led to these three primary questions:

1. What tablet methodology supports best practices in a K-5 blended learning

environment?

2. How does tablet use impact student engagement?

3. With an increase in the use of tablets in classrooms, what are teacher perceptions of

professional development and needs?

Description of Terms

Constant changes in technology and ever-expanding options for educators and their

students make it important to create a clear understanding of terminology utilized in this

 8

study. Describing and assigning meaning to terms adds clarity in a research study (Creswell,

2014; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014). The following is a

current, research-based list of terms used in this study.

Blended learning. As depicted in Figure 2 from the Clayton Christensen Institute,

blended learning is a formal education program in which a portion of the learning is at a brick-

and-mortar location (Christensen, Horn, & Staker, 2013; Horn & Staker, 2012; Pointek, 2013b).

The term blended learning in the context of this K-5 study means utilizing different technology

devices as a means to enhance teaching (Christensen et al., 2013; Horn & Staker, 2012; Pointek,

2013b). Although most elementary schools do not employ all of the models of blended learning,

it is helpful for educational practitioners learning about blended learning to have a

comprehensive understanding of the models and terminology that exist.

Figure 2

Blended Learning Taxonomy of Education Practice

SOURCE: Clayton Christensen Institute (2012)

 9

The rotation model is primarily utilized in this study (Christensen, Horn, & Staker, 2013). A

variety of models are frequently employed at the high school level for credit retrieval, advanced

course opportunities, and specific interests, or for those high schools located in rural areas where

limited foreign language or other advanced classes are available (Christensen et al., 2013).

Blended learning models. There are several models within the context of blended

learning. The use of tablets can be integrated into any of the models listed.

1. Rotation model. Students rotate on a set schedule or at the instructor’s direction.

Christensen, Horn, and Staker (2013) report that students in this model rotate

“between learning modalities, at least one of which is online learning,” within a class

such as math (p. 28). Christensen et al. (2013) state that “other modalities in the

rotation model might include small-group or full-class instruction, group projects,

individual tutoring, and pencil-and-paper assignments. The rotation model has four

submodels: station-rotation, lab-rotation, flipped-classroom, and individual-rotation”

(p. 28).

a. Station-rotation model. Within a controlled classroom setting, the learners

rotate (Christensen et al., 2013). The station-rotation model is also known as

the in-class or classroom rotation model.

b. Lab-rotation model. A rotation transpires for students between a classroom

and an educational lab setting on a set schedule (Christensen et al., Horn, &

Staker, 2013). The learning environment may be rotated using more than one

location instead of one set space.

 10

c. Individual-rotation model. Students can choose and individualize which

modalities to rotate through, though they may not utilize all accessible

modalities (Christensen et al., 2013).

d. Flipped-classroom model. Teachers can video record a lesson that students

watch at home as a part of their homework in the flipped-classroom model.

Classroom time is freed for students to work in collaboration with others,

which provides potentially more opportunities for differentiation. (Brunsell &

Horejsi, 2013; Christensen et al., 2013).

2. Flex model. Although the instructor of record is on site in the flex model, an

individually tailored, fluid schedule for students is created among diverse learning

modalities. Sometimes students are directed to offline activities. (Christensen et al.,

2013).

3. Self-blend model. This model allows learners to take online classes to enrich

traditional education in the classroom, and is often seen at the high school levels

(Pointek, 2013b).

4. Enriched-virtual model. Within a course, the enriched-virtual model learners split

their time attending a brick-and-mortar campus and learning remotely using online

delivery of content (Christensen et al., 2013).

Brick-and-mortar schools. Brick-and-mortar schools, in contrast to online schools, are

buildings containing traditional learning environments with face-to-face, teacher-led instruction

(Horn & Staker, 2012; iNACOL, 2011).

Disruptive innovation theory. Termed by Clayton Christensen of the Clayton

Christensen Institute, disruptive innovation theory is the idea of transforming a product that was
 11

expensive and inaccessible to others and making the product reasonably priced and available to

others (Christensen et al., 2013).

Guaranteed and viable curriculum (GVC). All students will learn with equal

opportunities, guaranteed (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Kopra, 2012; Marzano, 2003).

Assessments are developed from the curriculum being taught, students have time to learn,

teachers have a suitable amount of time to instill content, and it is viable when sufficient time

is safeguarded to impart all determined content (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Kopra, 2012;

Marzano, 2003).

Information and communication technologies (ICT). Sometimes ICT is used as a

synonym for information technology (IT). Information and communication technologies

highlight the role of unified communication, such as real-time and non-real-time

communication modalities (Kumar, 2014; Twining, Raffaghelli, Albion, & Knezek, 2013;

Velez, 2012). Teachers’ application of ICT requires training and preparation (Twining et al.,

2013).

Not on-task. Students who are not on-task exhibit disengagement behaviors such as

disinterest, boredom, unwillingness, and avoidance of tasks (Skinner & Pitzer, 2013).

On-Task. Students who are on-task exhibit engagement behaviors such as effort, hard

work, focus, attention, interest, and willing participation (Skinner & Pitzer, 2013).

Positive behavior supports. This is a classroom, and ideally school-wide, behavior

initiative to minimize disciplinary referrals that reduce valuable instructional time. It is based on

the framework of positive behavioral instructional support, known as PBIS (Horner & Sugai,

2000).
 12

Student engagement. There are several models of student engagement: behavioral,

emotional (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004), academic, social, affective (Finn & Zimmer,

2013), cognitive (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004), and psychological (Anderson,

Christenson, & Lehr, 2004). Figure 3 illustrates the model utilized.

Figure 3

Student Engagement Model

For purposes of this research study, application of the model demonstrated in Figure 3 was

employed (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006; Christenson, Reschly, Appleton,

Berman, Spanjers, & Varro, 2008). The specific aspects of observable engagement that this study

explored were on-task and off-task behaviors of students in a rural elementary school.

Tablets. Tablets are small, lightweight, handheld, touch screen, Internet-connected

devices that allow input on a screen via a stylus or finger as opposed to an external keyboard

(Fredette, 2012; Gentile, 2012; McLester, 2012; Miller, Moorefield-Lang, & Meier 2012;
 13

Pickett, 2012; Reiss, 2013). The site school used Apple iPads, though correlations can easily be

made between the various tablet manufacturers.

Significance of the Study

This study explores best teaching practices in a public elementary school setting with

technology devices integrated into the classroom. Specifically, this study addresses tablet

usage in an elementary school blended learning environment. In addition, the study addresses

aspects of technology use that affect student engagement and achievement. Multiple factors

impact student success, though engagement can be a predictor of student outcomes

(Anderman & Patrick, 2013; Finn & Zimmer, 2013; Reeve, 2013; Reschly & Christenson,

2013; Skinner & Pitzer, 2013). And finally, this study deals with the professional development

needs of teachers to increase their skills and abilities to use tablets in a deeper and more

intentional approach (Ackerman, 2009; Beaudry, 2011; Colandrea, 2012; Karl, 2011; Mishne,

2012).

This study is significant because blended learning at the elementary level in a public

school setting is not well recognized or known as a method of best instructional practice. An

examination or inquiry such as this can enhance the body of literature for educators and for

further research (Creswell, 2014; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995). As

embedding technology into learning is an ongoing practice that varies greatly depending on

funding, leadership, and professional development practices (Beaudry, 2011; Goldstein, 2010;

Shaw, 2010; Velez, 2012), considerations need to be made in teacher training for exemplary

implementation of best teaching practices in blended learning environments. Generalizations

from this study may inform other districts about successfully integrating technology devices into

the classroom.
 14

Theoretical Framework

Charlotte Danielson’s The Framework for Teaching: Evaluation Instrument, 2013

Edition, was utilized as the theoretical framework in this study. Danielson provides a four-

domain rubric as an instrument for teacher evaluation (see Tables 1-4). The domains include

planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction, and professional

responsibilities.

Critical attributes and examples of each rubric level are provided in the framework, as

well as elements of each component and indicators (Danielson, 2013). Domain 1 is organized

around best practice in teaching, demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy. An

unsatisfactory teacher rating, Level 1, may indicate that the teacher makes content errors, uses

inappropriate strategies, and lacks consideration for prerequisite knowledge and planning in the

lesson. Level 2, basic, may indicate that the teacher is familiar with concepts though lacks

awareness of how the concepts relate to one another. A proficient teacher in this example, Level

3, displays a solid knowledge of the discipline or content area and how concepts relate to one

another, provides clear explanations, answers students’ questions accurately, and uses strategies

in the unit and lesson plans that are suitable to the content. Finally at the distinguished level,

Level 4, the teacher displays extensive knowledge of important concepts and how those concepts

relate to one another and to other disciplines, and uses plans that reflect recent developments in

content-related pedagogy. In addition to print materials, digital training tools, and assessment

programs of Danielson’s framework, other supports and resources are available through The

Danielson Group website (http://www.danielsongroup.org/). The application of Danielson’s

work, in conjunction with best teaching practices including blended learning, should positively

impact student outcomes. Higher levels of student engagement would be predicted.

 15

Overview of Research Methods

A mixed methods design was employed for this study as it allowed the researcher to

combine quantitative and qualitative data in different forms (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2007; Yin, 2014). A case study was selected so the researcher could use a variety of

information and was not limited to one type of data collection (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 1988;

Stake 1995; Yin 2014). Yin (2014) describes case study research as a linear, iterative process.

Case studies are used to inform and add to our understanding of people, groups, and society.

Surveys, interviews, and classroom observations provided a rich and in-depth study of best

teaching practices and student engagement in a blended learning environment.

Within a single, rural elementary school in the Pacific Northwest, 250 students enrolled

during the 2013-2014 school year were observed in their respective first- through fifth-grade

classrooms. Notices were sent to parents in the participating classrooms. Parental objection to the

quantitative data collection would result in exclusion of that classroom in the study. Students

were observed to be on-task or not on-task, in 5-minute increments for a total of 30 minutes per

classroom. The data were collected in a quantitative data sheet (Appendix Q). There was no

personal contact between the students and the researcher, which would have required individual

parental consent. Descriptive statistical analysis was employed utilizing IBM SPSS Version 20.0

(IBM SPSS, 2014).

Thirty certificated teachers in the elementary school participated in both a paper pre-

survey and an electronic online survey administered using Qualtrics, a web-based survey tool

(Qualtrics, 2014). Teachers who volunteered for the surveys taught kindergarten through fifth

grade or were certificated full-time specialists. An email notice was sent reminding teachers of

the upcoming survey, and then an opportunity was made available for the teaching staff to
 16

participate in both the pre-survey and online survey, utilizing their district-issued laptops. The

principal arranged a time for the researcher to attend a morning staff meeting, and teachers were

instructed to bring their laptops. Anonymous results were collected both through the paper-and-

pencil pre-survey and through the online survey in a one-time submission. Teachers were

provided a paper copy of the two-question pre-survey. The pre-survey created a baseline prior to

other elements of the study, asking participants, “are you familiar with the term blended

learning?” and “are you acquainted with blended learning terminology and models?” The online

survey, which included 18 Likert scale and 4 open-ended qualitative questions, queried teachers

about blended learning practices, instruction, and tablet experience. The electronic survey

questions were modified from a 2013 Pew Research Center study (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, &

Friedrich, 2013).

Teachers completed the pre-survey on paper, the researcher collected them, and then the

online survey was administered. All 30 certificated staff completed the electronic survey and

then received a $5.00 coffee gift card as a token of appreciation for completing the survey.

Additionally, at the time of the survey administration, volunteer opportunities were made

available for interested staff to sign up for both the interview and classroom observations.

In addition to taking the pre-survey and online survey, eight kindergarten through fifth-

grade teachers from the school participated in two confidential qualitative interviews conducted

by the researcher during the 2013-2014 school year. Two different sets of interview questions

were used (see Appendices O and P). Questions about instructional methods with various

methods of tablet usage and the impact of professional development were explored through a

one-on-one, semi structured format.

 17

Careful planning and development of an interview protocol was completed prior to the

interviews with participants (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 1988; Yin, 2014). Teachers had an

opportunity to provide open-ended feedback at the end of each interview. Best practice in

interview protocol dictates audio-recording and transcription (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 1988;

Yin, 2014). Creswell (2014) provides a detailed data analysis process to authenticate the

accuracy of the data, which was followed by the investigator: audio-taping, transcription, coding,

and identifying emergent themes and best practices in blended learning.

 18

Chapter II

Review of the Literature

Introduction

Evidence of the positive instructional benefits of incorporating technology into public

schools in America is bountiful (Bauland, 2012; Christensen et al., 2013; Colandrea, 2012;

Goldstein, 2010; Malone, 2012; Pacansky-Brock, 2013; Pickett, 2012). The literature topics

reviewed in this chapter provide a sharper, more precise perspective of the role of best practices

in teaching in a blended learning environment while also addressing factors of student

engagement. Addressed are brick-and-mortar best practice, tablet integration, blended learning as

a best practice, student engagement, Danielson’s theoretical framework, and professional

development.

In 2002, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation changed public policy with both

positive and negative impacts. The primary intent of this legislation was to improve student

achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). The legislators who drafted the 2002 NCLB

recognized the value of computer technology as a tool to improve student achievement and

incorporated required computer technology use in K-12 education (Colandrea, 2012; Richardson,

2010). Technology-integrated twenty-first century classrooms require that teachers adopt new

roles and shift toward critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, and communication (Bauland,

2012; Colandrea, 2012; Pacansky-Brock, 2013; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2014a;

Sheninger, 2014; Stover, 2012).

No Child Left Behind high-stakes testing accountability measures can hinder educators’

ability to prepare students to enter higher education and employment where twenty-first century

skills are necessary for success (Serim, 2012; Stover, 2012; Velez, 2012; Zhao, 2009). Federal
 19

and state accountability measures require students to be proficient in concept mastery and lower

level knowledge (Serim, 2012; Velez, 2012; Zhao, 2009). These assessments do not examine

critical thinking skills, problem solving, collaboration, and information and communication

technology (ICT) skills, which are competencies expected at higher education institutions and by

employers. One of the adverse consequences of high-stakes testing has been that teachers have

narrowed their curriculum to teach content rather than higher order thinking, collaboration, and

ICT skills (Kumar, 2014; Serim, 2012; Twining et al., 2013; Velez, 2012; Zhao, 2009). For K-12

education institutions to change the way in which they prepare students for a global world,

schools have to implement a twenty-first century vision, mission, and curriculum (Partnership for

21st Century Skills, 2014b; Serim, 2012; Sheninger, 2014; Stover, 2012; Twining et al., 2013;

Velez, 2012; Zhao, 2009).

Key Instructional Elements in Brick-and-Mortar Schools

There are several key elements that are recognized as good pedagogy in brick-and-

mortar schools. Some of these elements include a guaranteed and viable curriculum, a simple,

laser-focus on school competencies, and networked professional learning communities.

Marzano (2003) asserts that the variable most strongly related to student achievement at the

school level is a guaranteed and viable curriculum (GVC). DuFour and Marzano (2011)

describe that “one of the most powerful things a school can do to enhance student achievement

is to guarantee that specific content is taught in specific courses and grade levels” (p. 89). Mike

Schmoker in Focus (2011), states that if “three simple elements: a common curriculum, sound

lessons, and authentic literacy” (p. 10-11) were taught consistently and reasonably well, there

would be a profound positive impact on students. The lack of such consistency can be a
 20

common concern among many schools as they make scattered efforts to implement many

things (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Schmoker, 2011).

Experts agree that simplicity is a key element to best teaching practices and student

achievement (Collins, 2001; Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999; Schmoker, 2006, 2011). In Good to Great,

best-selling author Jim Collins (2001) describes the Three Circles of the Hedgehog Concept (see

Figure 4) based on the famous essay from Isaiah Berlin (1993), The Hedgehog and the Fox.

Figure 4

Three Circles of the Hedgehog Concept

SOURCE: Jim Collins, Good to Great, 2001: HarperCollins Publishers, New York,

NY. Copyright © 2001.

The concept is that foxes are cunning and pursue worldly, complex ideas; hedgehogs

pursue simple, basic principles or concepts to create a unifying vision (Berlin, 1993; Collins,
 21

2001; Schmoker, 2011). One circle probes professionals (for example, teachers) to think about

what they are passionate about, and one would hope this includes the passion for students to be

engaged and to achieve success in academic achievement and as citizens. The next interlocking

circle probes educators about their economic engine. The third interlocking circle asks teachers

what they can be the best in the world at. Educators have a responsibility to students to provide

not only a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), but to meet Common Core standards,

prepare students for twenty-first century careers, and help create an environment in which

students are engaged through high quality instruction.

Some models have an arrow that points to the center of the interlocking circle that is

labeled as core competence. Fullan (2003) says that “just because something is your core

business–just because you have been doing it for years or perhaps decades–does not necessarily

mean you can be the best in the world at it” (p. 9). Although some may argue that schools are

not companies, many would agree that elements that make companies great can apply to

schools. In moving schools forward, applying the hedgehog concept of moving a company, or

school in this case, towards the goal of student achievement can prove beneficial (Collins, 2001;

Schmoker, 2011). Having a precise, refined focus of a shared goal (hedgehog), rather than

operating in a scattered, diffused, and inconsistent manner (fox) is more productive (Collins,

2001).

Professional learning communities (PLCs) encompass a large portion of the educational

work from Richard DuFour and his collaborators (DuFour, Dufour, & Eaker, 2008; DuFour,

DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010; DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Easton, 2009). DuFour et al. (2010)

suggest PLCs should develop a continual practice of having staff come together to mutually

work towards improving student achievement. In Leaders of Learning, DuFour and Marzano
 22

(2011) relate that all students should be learning regardless of which teacher they are assigned,

and that meeting individualized student needs takes a collaborative effort, which are

fundamental ideas in the PLC process. Easton (2009) describes protocols that involve a group of

people engaging in a structured process of conversation. They are frequently utilized with

teaching staff to facilitate discussions. Demands on teachers are high and time is limited,

making the protocol format an effective method to move through assisting teachers with specific

students, designing superior lesson plans, reaching agreement, or having an effective discussion

on a topic.

Technology and Tablets

The inclusion of technology in the classroom is moving forward to include the integration

of many devices. One type of device that has become increasingly used is the tablet. Tablet use

has led to an increase in mobile learning (Keane, 2012; McKenna, 2012; Miller, Moorefield-

Lang, & Meier 2012; Pacansky-Brock, 2013; Sheninger, 2014; Stein & Graham, 2014). Mobile

learning refers to education that transpires through the use of handheld mobile devices including

smartphones, PCs, iPods, tablets, and other devices (Keane, 2012; McKenna, 2012; Miller,

Moorefield-Lang, & Meier 2012; Pacansky-Brock, 2013).

Nationwide, 54% of school districts use tablet computers or e-readers, making tablets the

fastest developing school technology tool in the country (DeNisco, 2013). Tablets are being

integrated at an increasingly prominent pace into K-12 classrooms and higher education

(Johnson, 2012; Miller, Moorefield-Lang, & Meier 2012; Pacansky-Brock, 2013; Pickett, 2012).

Piper Jaffrey, an investment firm, found in their survey of 25 technology directors that 100%

were testing or deploying tablets in their schools (Gentile, 2012). Further demonstrating the

increase of tablet use in the United States and abroad, Cavanaugh and Hargis (2014) reported
 23

that college leaders at the national level, in the United Arab Emirates, provided tablets to select

universities in an effort to transform learning.

Bill Gates debuted a Microsoft tablet computer in 2001, using the term tablet, although

wider use of the term came in 2010 when Steve Jobs of Apple unveiled the first iPad device

(McLester, 2012; Miller, Moorefield-Lang, & Meier 2012). Tablets are small, lightweight,

handheld, touch screen, Internet-connected devices that allow input on a screen via a stylus or

finger as opposed to an external keyboard (Fredette, 2012; Gentile, 2012; McLester, 2012;

Miller, Moorefield-Lang, & Meier 2012; Pickett, 2012; Reiss, 2013). Users can manipulate

screens through zooming, rotating, pinching, taking and editing photographs, recording and/or

playing video, playing music, emailing, messaging, using social media, making presentations,

and running apps, all while enjoying the tablet’s long battery life (Fredette, 2012; McLester,

2012; Pacansky-Brock, 2013; Pickett, 2012; Rosenzweig, 2013).

Although use of classroom technology, including tablets, is becoming more prevalent, a

usage gap still exists between schools. Some analysts say the digital divide gap is wider than

ever, although there are active efforts to lessen the divide (Chong, 2012; Reiss 2013). This divide

happens because incorporating technology into classrooms is a major financial outlay for school

districts (Colandrea, 2012). To diminish the technology gap between lower income and wealthier

school districts, a federal program called E-Rate, was established in 1997 (McLester, 2012; U.S.

Federal Communications Commission, 1997). Districts can make cost choices to help bridge the

gap as well. Tablets are customizable and less expensive than laptops or PCs (Fredette, 2012).

Some districts use grants or special funding, or they utilize textbooks in their electronic form

(Fredette, 2012).
 24

In an effort to support the transformation of American classrooms to digital learning

labs, in 2012 the Federal Communications Commission Chairman and Secretary of Education

introduced a five-year challenge and Digital Textbook Playbook through the modification of the

textbook adoption process (Reiss, 2013). Taxpayer funding for K-12 schools that was once only

for traditional textbooks was made available for tablets and other devices (Reiss, 2013). Further

interest in digital materials developed in 2012 because of an Apple initiative to cultivate and

deliver digital textbooks by teaming with three of the largest textbooks companies: Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, and Pearson (McLester, 2012). Because of such developments,

many K-12 districts have considered going digital and getting rid of textbooks completely

(Fredette, 2012; Reiss, 2013). Throughout the U.S., schools have been advised to switch to

digital instructional materials by 2017, according to the State Educational Technology Directors

Association in its report titled, Out of Print: Reimaging the Textbook in a Digital Age (Reiss,

2013).

Tablets have been incorporated into many classrooms in K-12 and college learning

environments (McKenna, 2012; Pacansky-Brock, 2013). Many opportunities exist to incorporate

these tools into classroom instruction. Instructional tools, like tablets, are most effective when

utilized by a teacher who has familiarity with and professional development in effective usage

and technology integration (Bauland, 2012; Beaudry, 2011, Chong, 2012; Gathany, 2012;

Goldstein, 2010; McKenna, 2012; Pass, 2008; Shaw, 2010). Utilizing best teaching practices in

combination with using tablets creates a classroom of engaged students who are on-task and

ready to learn (Bauland, 2012; Beaudry, 2011, Chong, 2012; Gathany, 2012; Goldstein, 2010;

Shaw, 2010).
 25

Numerous tools exist to assist teachers in navigating the massive number of apps in

existence for tablets. Apple (http://www.apple.com/) has over 1 million apps for their products.

Over 65,000 are educational apps for the iPad, although other tablet manufacturers have

invested in Android app development (Fredette, 2012; McLester, 2012). One site, Educational

Technology and Mobile Learning: A Resource of Educational Web Tools and Mobile Apps for

Teachers and Educators, has a drop-down list of apps for teachers (Kharbach, 2013). There are

more than two dozen different choices of categories, and each category, such as “Digital

Storytelling Apps for iPad,” provides several suggested apps for that topic (Kharbach, 2013).

Blended Learning

Blended learning instruction provides an opportunity for students to learn in a method

that is personalized (Christensen et al., 2013; Horn, 2013; iNACOL, 2013; Malone, 2012;

Pointek, 2013b; Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2012; Werth, Werth, & Kellerer,

2013). Blended learning allows for a commanding mixture of real-time interaction based on the

school structure and the diverse group of learners (Gathany, 2012; iNACOL, 2013; Pointek,

2013b). In The Online Learning Definitions Project, blended learning is defined as:

Anytime a student learns in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from

home and at least in part through online delivery with some element of student control

over time, place, path, and/or pace; often used synonymously with Hybrid Learning.

(iNACOL, 2011, p. 3)

While online learning is the taxonomy, the focus of this study was brick-and-mortar

instructional elements and blended learning (see Figure 5). It may be helpful to those who are

new to blended learning to see the overview that this taxonomy demonstrates, as well as

subsequent models and terminology.

 26

Figure 5

Blended Learning in Relation to Other Education Practices

SOURCE: Clayton Christensen Institute (2012)

Education, as one of the biggest industries in the world, will be transformed by blended

learning (Jensen, 2013; Pickett, 2012; Pointek, 2013b). Futurist Rolf Jensen reports that more

than three million college students are accessing digital learning for free through a company

called Coursera, which works in cooperation with different universities, and the digital learning

trend is predicted to grow (Jensen, 2013; Pointek, 2013b; Stein & Graham, 2014). According to a

2010 report from the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly every U.S. school has at

least one instructional computer with Internet access.

 27

There are several different blended learning models; some are hybrids (Christensen et

al., 2013; Gradel & Edson, 2011; Pinto & Anderson, 2012; Pointek, 2013b; Roseth, Akcaoglu,

& Zellner, 2013). Horn (2013) refers to the station-rotation, lab-rotation, and flipped-classroom

models. He argues that elementary schools will be “sustaining innovation” (p. 3) whereas at the

high school level, blended learning is likely to replace the traditional classroom (Christensen,

Horn, & Staker, 2013). Staker and Horn (2012) of Clayton Christensen Institute (formerly

Innosight Institute) developed a preliminary model (see Figure 5) of a blended learning

taxonomy based on an examination of curricula. The authors report that their model characterizes

certain programs within a school and is not a typology for a school-wide plan, as many schools

have a variety of blended learning models for their learners (Horn & Staker, 2012). The research

site school in this study primarily uses the rotation model, though it is helpful to gain an

overview of blended learning and the models available for implementation and integration into

educational systems.

Whatever model they use, schools are implementing blended learning because of the

benefits. Research supports the effectiveness of blended learning over traditional brick-and-

mortar instruction and digital learning alone (McGee & Reis, 2012; Means, Toyama, Murphy,

Bakia, & Jones, 2010; Nagel, 2009; Tao, Fore, & Forbes, 2011; Werth, Werth, & Kellerer,

2013). Werth, Werth, and Kellerer (2013) highlight a joint research study with the Idaho Digital

Learning Academy (IDLA) and iNACOL in which K-12 teachers were surveyed who had

received professional development from IDLA in blended learning. In the survey results, 87% of

teachers found forms of communication between parents and students and themselves to be the

same or better after implementing blended learning. With the use of blended learning, more than
 28

80% of teachers reported improvements in self-paced learning and the ability to be innovative

and provide assistance to those who are struggling.

With all the advantages of blended learning, there are also a variety of tools available

such as DreamBox Learning (http://www.dreambox.com/). DreamBox Learning, founded in

2006, is a learning platform that utilizes blended learning techniques to reach learners in all 50

states (Pointek, 2013b). Along with DreamBox, there are many other tools to connect students to

their learning in ways not possible for students in the past. According to social networking tool

Edmodo (2014), over 32 million educators and students across the globe are utilizing its services

and other similar platforms. Depicted by Ambient Insight (2011), the growth of digital learning

(Figure 6), offers blended learning tools to reach learners across the U.S. and the globe.

Figure 6

Growth of Digital Learning

SOURCE: Ambient Insight (2011)

As educational leaders have become more aware of the effectiveness of blended learning,

districts appear to be integrating technology with the Common Core and with assessment

practices. For example, according to the State of Washington Office of the Superintendent of
 29

Public Instruction (2013), leaders have created and are piloting a statewide SMARTER Balanced

Assessment, the first digital public school exam in the state, as a new way to assess students with

the new Common Core State Standards. In addition, educational technology standards have been

tied in with the Common Core. This tie-in, called Crosswalk, includes such requirements as

interacting and collaborating by using a variety of digital tools (Washington State OSPI, 2013b).

Although not all have welcomed the Common Core and SMARTER assessment adoption

as the new teacher evaluation system in Washington, the movement towards incorporating

technology into education is clear. This movement highlights the need for teachers to have

appropriate professional development to ensure effective test administration. Students need to be

comfortable with the computer so that technology is not a barrier to a clear assessment of their

knowledge.

The combination of traditional and digital learning together form the powerful blended

learning model visible in the Common Core, new assessments, and technology standards

required by states. Making a well-planned transition to this blended learning model is essential

for success. One process for reaching this goal is through the use of effective instructional

exercises developed by Judy Harris and Mark Hofer (2009) based on the technological,

pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) model. This process assists teachers in how to

teach, select, and use educational technology effectively (Bennett, 2012; Harris & Hofer, 2009;

Mishne, 2012; Serim, 2012).

Like the TPACK model, blended learning allows practitioners to meet the diverse needs

of students by matching technology, instruction, and content to each student (DreamBox

Learning, 2014c; Roseth, Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Tao, Fore, & Forbes, 2011). Opportunities

are available with open-source technologies to incorporate advances and adjust teaching
 30

strategies for the individual needs of students and to maximize their potential (Roseth,

Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Tao, Fore, & Forbes, 2011). For example, Roseth, Akcaoglu, and

Zellner (2013) report that WordPress, an open source website publishing application, was

utilized in a study at Michigan State University to design a virtual classroom space with mostly

free updates, tools, and customization. In the study, Google’s suite of applications, which

provided free video conferencing for hosting up to 10 people, allowed for collaboration. The

researchers argue that working collaboratively in small groups makes learning a more

cooperative, effective, and engaging shared experience (Reeves & Reeves, 1997; Tao, Fore, &

Forbes, 2011).

While working collaboratively is effective, equally important is the increasingly

dominant technology-rich classroom (DreamBox Learning, 2014b; Green & Evans, 2014;

Scheninger, 2014). The National Education Technology Plan has been developed to encourage,

engage, and endow learning experiences that equip students for a global society (Rosen & Beck-

Hill, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). One example is the Time to Know program,

designed for a blended learning environment at the elementary level. In a study of Time to

Know, Rosen and Beck-Hill (2012) reported five different program components: infrastructure,

interactive yearlong core curriculum, digital teaching platform, pedagogical support, and

technical support. In a pre/post assessment, they found that disciplinary concerns declined and

unexcused absences decreased by 29.2% during the school year as a result of the program. The

authors indicate that teachers implementing the three-tiered model had a differentiated

curriculum at their disposal. Their study supports innovative approaches to technology

integration in the blended learning environment.

 31

In 2007, Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams, two high school teachers from Colorado,

instigated the notion of the flipped classroom, which has been popularized by Salman Khan and

the Khan Academy (Curtis, 2013; Flumerfelt & Green, 2013; Pacansky-Brock, 2013). In a

flipped classroom, video recordings of lectures are shared with students before class time.

Classroom time is freed up to interact when students are face to face and apply the information

learned in the videos (Brunsell & Horejsi, 2013; Christensen, Horn, & Staker, 2013; Curtis,

2013; Flumerfelt & Green, 2013; Pacansky-Brock, 2013).

Such blended learning environments fit in with the modern emphasis in education on

twenty-first century skills for students (Bauland, 2012; Hoyle & Kutka, 2008; Richardson,

2010; Riddle, 2010; Serim, 2012). There are several organizations, including the International

Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) that provide technology standards (see Figure 7).

Figure 7
National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T), 2008

SOURCE: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)

 32

The ISTE formed the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) to assist educators in

determining the twenty-first century skills that students, teachers, and administrators need to be

effective (ISTE, 2008; Serim, 2012). Although there are student and administrator standards, the

focus of this research was the 2008 teacher standards (NETS-T) as shown in Figure 7. The

NETS-T includes digital age learning, student learning, professional growth, digital citizenship,

and digital age work.

These standards exemplify what teachers may be required to demonstrate for evaluative

purposes and imply a need for skills training to help teachers deliver appropriate instruction so

their students can meet twenty-first century demands (DreamBox Learning, 2014c; Partnership

for 21st Century Skills, 2014a; Serim, 2012). Other standards, such as those outlined in

Charlotte Danielson’s teaching framework, also include several components in which

technology is a part (Danielson, 2013).

Student Engagement

Student engagement can be challenging to define as it is multidimensional. There are

different forms of student engagement: cognitive, academic, social, behavioral, affective, and

emotional. Engagement is closely tied to motivation, self-determination, and self-efficacy

(Christenson et al., 2008; Christenson, Stout, & Pohl, 2012; Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie,

2013; Finn & Zimmer, 2013; Marzano & Brown, 2009; Raftery, Grolnick, & Flamm, 2013;

Reschly & Christenson, 2013; Skinner & Pitzer, 2013).

Fullan (2014) argues:

schools can no longer be a place where information is merely presented; students must be

actively engaged in their own learning–building deep understanding of concepts,

applying different frameworks, analyzing the work of others, finding solutions to real
 33

problems through collaboration, thinking creatively and critically, contributing ideas, and

developing products of quality. (p. 155)

Student engagement, in the context of this research is best summarized in Figure 3.

Appleton, Christenson, Kim, and Reschly (2006) and Christenson et al. (2008) developed

this model and it is cited in other works in the student engagement field of study (see Appendices

I and J). For purposes of this research study, the model guides the literature review of student

engagement (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006; Christenson et al., 2008). In this

model, observable engagement and internal engagement are divided into four engagement

subtypes. The specific aspects of observable engagement that this study explored were on-task

and off-task behaviors of students in a rural elementary school.

Figure 3
Student Engagement
 34

Observable engagement includes two of the four subtypes shown in Figure 3. Those two

are academic and behavioral engagement. Academic engagement is demonstrated through

student goal-achievement behaviors, such as determining effective tactics for material

acquisition, self-monitoring, and persevering through challenges (Schunk & Mullen, 2013).

Danielson (2013) says what students are doing and saying in response to the teacher is

the best indicator of student engagement. Educators generally equate on-task behavior with

academic engagement as well: effort, hard work, focus, attention, interest, and willing

participation (Skinner & Pitzer, 2013) are all examples.

Engagement in school contributes to key educational outcomes (Bempechat & Shernoff,

2013; Christenson et al., 2008; Christenson, Stout, & Pohl, 2012; DreamBox Learning, 2014c;

Finn & Zimmer, 2013; Raftery, Grolnick, & Flamm, 2013). Schunk and Mullen (2013) state,

“students engaged in learning have a sense of self-efficacy for learning. They hold positive

outcome expectations and value the learning” (p. 225). The also stated, “setting goals, evaluating

their progress, deciding on effective strategies for learning the material and succeeding, as well

as displaying productive achievement behaviors,” (p. 225) are examples of educational outcomes

with an engaged learner.

Parents can play a key role in their child’s academic engagement (Bempechat &

Shernoff, 2013; Raftery, Grolnick, & Flamm, 2013). Parents are guides for their children in their

school experience, and parents can significantly safeguard or jeopardize the dynamics of low

achievement (Bempechat & Shernoff, 2013; Raftery, Grolnick, & Flamm, 2013). Successful

educational outcomes can be attributed to the involvement of parents in their children’s

schooling (Bempechat & Shernoff, 2013; Raftery, Grolnick, & Flamm, 2013).
 35

Behavioral student engagement, another observable engagement subtype (see Figure 3),

involves managing student behaviors in the classroom efficiently and proactively, with consistent

practices focused on prevention (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013; Pianta, Hamre, & Allen,

2013). In a school-wide approach, a strong framework is found in the implementation of a

positive behavioral intervention system (PBIS) from work at the University of Oregon.

Developers of the methodology and system for the implementation of PBIS include Rob Horner,

George Sugai and Jeff Sprague (Horner, Sugai, & Horner, 2000; Sprague & Golly, 2005). A

simple effective system of (a) be safe, (b) be respectful and (c) be responsible, can provide clear

and simple guidance toward the manner in which all students and staff can expect to be treated

and to treat others (Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2013; Sprague & Golly, 2005).

Internal engagement has two subtypes in this model: cognitive and affective (see Figure

3). Internal engagement is tougher to observe, though it is critical to student engagement

(Christenson, Stout, & Pohl, 2012). Both cognitive and affective engagements are impacted by

the complexity of the classroom environment and relational settings (Pianta, Hamre, & Allen,

2013). While teachers implement best teaching practices, students must be working in an

environment where they feel safe and where positive behaviors are reinforced (Beaty, 2006;

Jones, Dohrn, & Dunn, 2004; Marzano & Brown, 2009; Sprague & Golly, 2005; Voelkl, 2013).

Supportive teacher-student relationships and peer-to-peer relationships enhance student

engagement and positive outcomes (Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2013).

Marzano and Brown (2009) argue that student engagement produces deeper

understanding and enhanced levels of achievement. In the book titled, A Handbook for the Art

and Science of Teaching, five factors relate to student engagement:

 36

• High energy – This is demonstrated by using physical activity, pacing, and enthusiasm

to promote engagement and motivation.

• Missing information – Teachers can capitalize on the need for closure by asking

students to discover and supply missing information.

• The self-system – Effective engagement involves incorporating topics, ideas, and

processes that students find inherently interesting and valuable to them.

• Mild pressure – When students experience mild pressure while engaging in activities

such as questioning, games, and competitions, they tend to focus their attention on key

elements of the learning process.

• Mild controversy and competition – Teachers can structure and manage nonthreatening

forms of controversy and competition through such processes as debates, tournaments,

and related forms of team-based activities (Marzano & Brown, 2009, p. 157).

A module and different activities that align with each of the five factors listed above are provided

in Marzano and Brown’s text.

Praising students is another important part of student engagement that involves providing

students with insight, feedback, and encouragement (Dweck, 1999; Horner, & Sugai, 2000;

Jones, Dohrn, & Dunn, 2004; Pink, 2009; Sprague & Golly, 2005). Psychologist Carol Dweck

suggests that teachers offer specific praise for students, making the praise genuine and providing

the praise individually instead of in front of the whole class (Dweck 1999; Pink, 2009).

Similarly, strategies to demonstrate caring for students can include showing interest in their life

outside of school, welcoming students as they arrive, checking in with students who may be

experiencing a tough day, and listening to help students feel valued (Boynton & Boynton, 2005).
 37

There are many hindrances to both observable and internal student engagement. Teachers

and staff should be cognizant that whether or not the lesson is engaging is not solely dependent

on their teaching skills (Finn & Zimmer, 2013; Marzano & Brown, 2009; Reschly &

Christenson, 2013; Schunk & Mullen, 2013; Skinner & Pitzer, 2013). Students are less likely to

attend or be on-task when they are dealing with contextual factors such as self-efficacy, family

influence, disabilities, language barriers, behavioral challenges, and socioeconomic status.

Further, these factors can be compounded by cognitive, social, and affective/emotional

engagement. (Bempechat & Shernoff, 2013; Finn & Zimmer, 2013; Reschly & Christenson,

2013; Schunk & Mullen, 2013; Skinner & Pitzer, 2013).

Poor classroom management can also hinder student engagement. Conversely, teaching

students an effective discipline system in the classroom is preventative, reducing the need for

consequences or punishment. Such an environment can then facilitate student engagement,

encourage participation, and diminish the amount of instructional time spend on aversive action

(Boynton & Boynton, 2005; Jones, Dohrn, & Dunn, 2004).

Many educators would agree that classroom cultures are a powerful influence on

students’ relationships and engagement in social development (Pianta, Hamre, & Allen 2013). It

is not a surprise that Charlotte Danielson addresses student engagement in her instructional

framework for teachers (Danielson, 2013). Student-led discussions and activities increase student

engagement (Danielson, 2013). The relationship between teachers and students is critical in the

development of higher levels of student engagement (Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2013).

Danielson’s Theoretical Framework

Schachter (2012) notes that the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) has

been watching the number of states mandating the annual evaluation of teachers. When the
 38

2009 Race to the Top federal program had $4.5 billion in funds, teacher evaluation was a part

of that program. In regards to Race to the Top, Fullan (2014) says there has been “an

explosion in the development of instruments and frameworks for teacher appraisal” (p. 30).

Danielson’s framework, which lends itself to the teacher evaluation process (see Tables

1-4) has been adopted by Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Delaware, and some large districts

in New York City, Chicago, Houston, and Syracuse (Schachter, 2012). In Washington State, a

new teacher and principal evaluation system was implemented and districts could opt to select

from one of three theoretical frameworks: (a) Marzano Laboratories’ framework, (b) University

of Washington’s Center for Education Leadership’s Five Dimensions of Teaching and Learning,

or (c) Charlotte Danielson’s work (Association of Washington School Principals, 2013; WA

State Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project, 2013d). In Danielson’s framework, The Framework

for Teaching, Evaluation Instrument, 2013, there are 22 components divided into four domains,

as demonstrated in Tables 1-4 (Danielson, 2013; Schachter, 2012).

In the first domain (see Table 1) Danielson (2013) has six components of planning and

preparation. Danielson describes how the framework is centered on student engagement and

defines student engagement as a state in which students are intellectually active. She argues

that hands-on activities should cause students’ minds to be engaged in the learning activity.

Nationally there is a movement to change binary evaluations (satisfactory/unsatisfactory) to a

new system of a four-point rubric (see Table 1-4) similar to the instrument Danielson provides

(Association of Washington School Principals, 2013). The rubric is the same in all four

domains: Level 1 is the lowest (unsatisfactory), Level 2 is basic, Level 3 is proficient, and

Level 4 is distinguished (Danielson, 2013).

 39

Table 1

Danielson Framework for Teaching, Domain 1

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation / Rubric

1a) Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy

1b) Demonstrating Knowledge of Students

1c) Setting Instructional Outcomes

1d) Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources

1e) Designing Coherent Instruction

1f) Designing Student Assessments

Note. All sections of Domain 1 are evaluated on a 4-level scale where Level 1 is unsatisfactory,
Level 2 is basic, Level 3 is proficient, and Level 4 is distinguished.

Though many districts have implemented this type of evaluative framework, which

usually replaces a previous binary system of satisfactory/unsatisfactory, there remains debate

about the ability to be distinguished in all domains (Association of Washington School

Principals, 2013). In the second domain (see Table 2) Danielson (2013) maintains that positive

and supportive relationships with students are essential. An environment of respect and rapport

are created. The rubric provides both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the evaluation,

offering a more interactive process than a traditional summative-type evaluation. A series of

observations occur instead of a once-a-year visit from the principal (Association of

Washington School Principals, 2013).

 40

Table 2

Danielson Framework for Teaching, Domain 2

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment / Rubric

2a) Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport

2b) Establishing a Culture for Learning

2c) Managing Classroom Procedures

2d) Managing Student Behavior

2e) Organizing Physical Space

Note. All sections of Domain 1 are evaluated on a 4-level scale where Level 1 is unsatisfactory,
Level 2 is basic, Level 3 is proficient, and Level 4 is distinguished.

Table 3

Danielson Framework for Teaching, Domain 3

Domain 3: Instruction

3a) Communicating With Students

3b) Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques

3c) Engaging Students in Learning

3d) Using Assessment in Instruction

3e) Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

Note. All sections of Domain 1 are evaluated on a 4-level scale where Level 1 is unsatisfactory,
Level 2 is basic, Level 3 is proficient, and Level 4 is distinguished.
 41

Domain 3 (Table 3) is particularly pertinent to the portion of this study dedicated to

student engagement, as this domain encompasses communication, questioning and discussion

techniques, student engagement in learning, assessment in instruction, and flexibility and

responsiveness. Teachers’ use of their own vocabulary and language represents an opportunity

to provide modeling for students.

Danielson (2013) says students who engage in questions such as “what if?”

demonstrate engagement more so than a classroom of compliant students. Lessons should have

a “discernable structure: a beginning, middle and an end, with scaffolding provided by the

teacher” (Danielson, 2013, p. 69).

The final domain (see Table 4) is centered on the professional responsibilities of the

teacher. Danielson’s (2013) outline in this domain encourages teachers to engage in practices that

lead to improvements in teaching and learning: continual reflection, instructional analysis,

acquisition of skills, and enlistment of support from colleagues, mentors, and supervisors.

Table 4

Danielson Framework for Teaching, Domain 4

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

4a) Reflecting on Teaching

4b) Maintaining Accurate Records

4c) Communicating With Families

4d) Participating in the Professional Community

4e) Growing and Developing Professionally

Note. All sections of Domain 1 are evaluated on a 4-level scale where Level 1 is unsatisfactory,
Level 2 is basic, Level 3 is proficient, and Level 4 is distinguished.
 42

Maintaining a compilation of strategies and reflecting accurately on lessons are important

indicators of this fourth domain. This domain also intersects with the topic of professional

development in the application of tablet integration into schools. Domain 4 is a core domain for

teachers both in their evaluation and professional growth in the field of education. Teachers need

to have a comfort level and system of support to enable them to expand, explore, and define their

instruction for all of their students.

Professional Development Related to Blended Learning

Professional development is included as a component in Danielson’s teaching framework,

as enhanced teacher learning occurs when the school environment provides support and

encouragement of teachers’ learning, teachers are engaged in deliberate practice, and

opportunities exist to refine and add complexity to their practice (Beaudry, 2011; Chong, 2012;

Shaw, 2010). Professional development that assists teachers in overcoming technology barriers,

assists teachers with their own learning, includes peer-to-peer professional development, and

systemically affects other school practice will be addressed in this section.

The ease of access to technology support, modeling, authentic teaching activities, and

collaboration are important factors in professional development (Beaudry, 2011; Chong, 2012;

Karl, 2011). In fact, collaboration with other teachers is key to professional growth (Beaudry,

2011; Chong, 2012, Werth, Werth, & Kellerer, 2013). Mireles (2012) infers teachers with higher

levels of teaching innovation place greater value on learning from experts outside the network

and collaboration at individual schools in transforming their practice.

When technology is instituted, professional development should be provided

simultaneously to teachers to help them move forward past barriers (Pass, 2008). Researchers

have found that even if educators view changes as advantageous to themselves or others, they
 43

will not take steps en route to change if they view the obstacles as too challenging to overcome

(Prochaska & Prochaska, 1999; Werth, Werth, & Kellerer, 2013). Therefore, obstacles that

prevent professional development–lack of time, technology access, and administrative support–

also prevent full implementation of blended learning techniques (Chong, 2012; Colandrea, 2012;

Werth, Werth, & Kellerer, 2013). For example, schools have had difficulty coming up with a

tablet plan because the tablet field is moving so quickly (Fredette, 2012).

Oftentimes, district professional development is utilized for curriculum needs, alignment

to standards, and assessment. With technology integrated into the standards (Common Core),

opportunities for professional development should increase. Instead, many teachers who want to

further their technological abilities must do so on their own time.

The need for professional development to address technology integration and innovation

is more evident at the elementary school level (Beaudry, 2011; Colandrea, 2012). Beaudry

(2011) found that elementary teachers were utilizing technology for direct instruction and test

preparation, rather than for professional development needs. Developing innovative teacher

education programs helps both teachers and students, as preservice teachers are often early

adopters (Chong, 2012; Paganelli, 2010; Twining et al., 2013). However, if information and

communication technology has not been made a priority in the preparatory program, it is

challenging for preservice teachers to change their mindset (Twining et al., 2013). As teachers

become more familiar with technology and use it for their own learning, they can also help

students learn to use it more effectively.

Professional development enables teachers to integrate and continue their own

professional growth when a continuum of options has been developed. After two years of

research from the Education Development Center, Burns (2013) identified what she says are the
 44

top five emerging professional development technologies. Burns, a technology-based teacher

training curriculum designer, ranked mobile technologies as the most favorable for personalized

teacher professional development. Her research revealed that internationally, teachers receive

professional development via their mobile technology devices. The low cost of both smart

phones and tablets, as well as the availability of the apps that assist in delivering educational

content to teachers, make for robust educational opportunities. An app such as AppMakr, a do-it-

yourself app, is utilized by both students and teachers to create their own apps. The other four

technologies that Burns identified for professional development include Internet protocol TV

(IPTV), immersive environments, video, and social media. Tablets can be used to receive high-

definition (HD) digital content and on-demand tailored professional development programming

at school or at home. These different technologies in the mobile device category, including the

tablet, demonstrate how teachers can access an individualized professional development menu at

the location and time of their choice (Burns, 2013).

Not only can professional development help individual teachers, who in turn help their

students, but it can help teachers who in turn help each other. Addressing professional

development needs for technology use is important in moving everyone forward and utilizing

staff members who exhibit attributes of technology trainers (Johnson, 2012). Johnson (2012)

says there are seven qualities that make trainers effective at assisting others with technology (p.

196-197):

• Always assuming the problem is on the desk, not in the chair

• Refraining from touching the learner’s mouse

• Having the ability to create great analogies

• Providing clear support materials

 45

• Knowing what is essential and what is only confusing

• Assuring learners that “if it breaks, we’ll fix it”

• Retaining perspective

If professional development includes such instructions, teachers can help each other and their

students more readily implement technology.

Implementation of educational technology in a school environment requires professional

development for teachers that augments learners’ abilities and combines pioneering

methodologies in technology (Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012; Twining et al., 2013). This kind of

comprehensive approach to professional development invites a more systemic form of change

(Goldstein, 2010). Betts (1992) says systems are a “set of elements that function as whole to

achieve a common purpose” (p. 2). Further, Nichols and Ferrara (2014) argue that systems

thinking includes the network of “relationships among objects and activities” (p. 3).

In one example of systemic change, a small rural district in Cashton, Wisconsin, outside

consultants are brought in to lead professional development, send teachers to summer workshops,

and provide teachers with common planning times to explore ways to implement technology in

the classroom (Butler, 2010). The district has a teacher on special assignment (TOSA) to help

train other teachers to implement technology into their classrooms (Butler, 2010; Johnson, 2012).

The TOSA can help teachers use the interactive boards for math problems, record and create a

slide show the teachers can play back in class, or post recorded material on the Internet for

parents and children to replay on their own (Butler, 2010). Butler says, “to foster communication,

Cashton teachers have been given access to NetVibes, a Web publishing platform that teachers

use to write blogs, post classroom assignments and newsletters, share news feeds, and post

warm-up exercises” (2010, para. 17). One district supplies teachers with tablets and provides
 46

hands-on orientation sessions so teachers know how to care for the tablets as well as operate

them (DeNisco, 2013). That district continues to provide training over the year and eventually

moves towards outcome and usage training as teachers quickly adjust to the tablets (DeNisco,

2013).

Conclusion

The literature supports blended learning as one viable method of implementing best

teaching practices (Christensen, Horn, & Staker, 2013; Horn & Staker, 2011; Means et al.,

2010; Nagel, 2009; Pacansky-Brock, 2013; Pointek, 2013b; Werth, Werth, & Kellerer, 2013).

Sound pedagogical strategies taught well and with consistency are key to high levels of

academic achievement (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Marzano & Brown, 2009; Schmoker, 2011).

This can be applied to brick-and-mortar schools, blended learning, and hybrid learning

environments.

Classrooms in the twenty-first century require educators to integrate web-based

resources, share among other teachers in virtual environments, and make small steps using

sound pedagogical techniques (Bauland, 2012; Karl, 2011). Having access to effective

professional development experiences for all stakeholders is not unreasonable for teachers to

expect (Jenkins, 2012; Pass, 2008). Further research may assist educators in strategically

implementing blended learning at all levels, as it is currently inadequate, especially at the

elementary level in brick-and-mortar schools.

The goal of implementing blended learning is to increase student engagement. Student

engagement is more than a child’s being on-task (Danielson, 2013; Marzano & Brown, 2009).

There are many factors that impact student engagement such as attendance, discipline,

classroom management or behavioral supports, and connectedness to the teacher and class.
 47

Building an environment for successful blended learning and student engagement

requires systems thinking. Systems thinking means building a shared vision, mental models, and

team learning, all essential ingredients for the integration of technology and best practices in

teaching (Senge, 1990). A systemic orientation is the most coherent way to provide teachers

with the professional development they need to engage their students and feel confident in their

technology integration (Pink, 2009; Senge, 1990). Systematically rebuilding systems that have

failed in schools requires what Collins (2001) calls a Level 5 leader. Such leaders are those with

determination and humility who are driven with an unwavering resolve (Collins, 2001). Leaders

who challenge conventional methodology can lead to systemic changes in thinking (Collins,

2001; Pink, 2009; Senge, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1992). They are the type of leaders required for the

integration of best teaching practices in blended learning.

 48

Chapter III

Design and Methodology

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate best practices in a K-5 blended learning

environment and to determine if tablet usage in the classroom increases student engagement

factors. As the district in this study and others move toward one-to-one tablet usage, it is

important to determine whether student engagement increases with the use of technology devices

and which teaching practices are best in a blended learning environment. Identifying professional

development needs of teachers in a blended learning environment was also an intentional focus,

and qualitative data about this was collected and reported in this study.

This study was conducted in kindergarten through fifth grades using the following data

collection methods: pre-survey for certificated teachers, an online certificated teacher survey,

interview data with eight certificated teaching staff, and 10 classroom observations in the first

through fifth grades. All observations took place in one rural, elementary school in the Pacific

Northwest.

This research aimed to answer three primary questions:

1. What methodology supports best practices in a K-5 blended learning environment?

2. How does tablet use impact student engagement?

3. With an increase in the use of tablets in classrooms, what are teacher perceptions of

professional development and needs?

A case study design was selected to conduct this research (Merriam, 1988; Creswell,

2007, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014). Case study methodology
 49

was chosen in order to examine and compare different first through fifth-grade classrooms

employing one-to-one tablets, two-to-one tablets, and fewer than 10 tablets per classroom.

Qualitative data was collected from two open-ended questions in the teacher pre-survey

(see Figure 8), open-ended questions in the online survey, and eight individual interviews. Each

interview was conducted twice, with a different set of questions for the second interview (see

Appendices O and P), for a total of 16 interviews. Open-ended questions from both the online

survey and interviews identified professional development needs and tablet usage and comfort, as

well as information for potential direction for technology and instructional leaders in this district.

Figure 8

Triangulation of Data

Interviews

Survey

Classroom
Observations Pre-survey

Quantitative data was collected from 30 teachers in a pre-survey, 30 teachers through

Likert scale online surveys, and 10 different 30 minute classroom observations in the first

through fifth grades. The variety of data collection resulted in a mixed methods approach. Using
 50

more than one source of data, called triangulation (see Figure 8), safeguards rigor in a study

(Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Triangulation in qualitative research permits perceptions from

various viewpoints (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

Research Design

Prior to beginning the study, sound ethical considerations were given due process. As a

veteran school psychologist, the researcher adheres to the American Psychological Association

Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2013). In

addition, an institutional review board reviewed plans for this study (Creswell, 2008; Creswell,

2014; Yin, 2014). Prior to the study, consent was formally sought and permission granted in

June, 2013, from the Human Research Review Committee (HRRC) at Northwest Nazarene

University (Approval #3062013). Additionally, training was received from the National Institute

of Health, and certification was received (see Appendix A). Informed consent was obtained

from participants of the online survey, and written consent was received for all interview

participants (see Appendix K). Finally, parents and classroom communities were informed of

the study before the researcher commenced classroom observations in the fall of 2013 (see

Appendix T). Participation was voluntary, and it was made clear that withdrawal from the study

was possible at any time.

Both open-ended and close-ended survey questions drawing on multiple sources of data

are included in a mixed-method case study research design (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2007; Merriam 1988; Yin, 2014). Table 5 outlines a synopsis of data that was collected

as part of this study to answer the research questions.

 51

Table 5

Synopsis of Data Collection

Data Collection Methods

Researcher reflective journal, field notes Qualitative Data

Pre-survey for teachers, open-ended questions Qualitative Data

Online teacher survey, open-ended questions Qualitative Data

Interview #1 with elementary teachers Qualitative Data

Interview #2 with elementary teachers Qualitative Data

Pre-survey for teachers Quantitative Data

Likert scale portion of the online teacher surveys Quantitative Data

Classroom observations of on-task student engagement Quantitative Data

Qualitative research methods were used to investigate the three research questions in this

study (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 1988; Yin 2014). Several qualitative methods were employed

including pre-survey questions, an online survey, and two sets of interviews, all conducted with

certificated teachers. Two open-ended pre-survey questions were provided to teachers to explore

aspects of blended learning. Measuring teacher professional development needs and attitudes

towards technology were explored through open-ended questions in an electronic teacher

survey. Finally, two interviews were conducted in classrooms at the site school with each of the

eight teacher volunteers, for a total of 16 interviews (see Appendices O and P).

Quantitative research methodology includes instrument-based questions, performance

data, and statistical analysis (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Yin 2014). Several
 52

quantitative methods were employed for this study: two pre-survey questions, an online multiple

choice survey, and classroom observations. Two blended learning pre-survey questions, in a

yes/no format, were asked of all the participants. Quantitative Likert scale results for the online

teacher surveys were analyzed with a post hoc test. On-task behavior for first through fifth

graders was analyzed through a series of 10 classroom observations. Classroom on-task

behavior was quantified in 5-minute increments during 30-minutes of observation by the

researcher.

Participants

Ethical issues in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods require careful

consideration (Creswell, 2014; Stake, 2010; Yin, 2014). While there are many ethical

considerations, one of the most important is respecting the privacy of participants. This was

accomplished through the use of fictitious names (Creswell, 2014; Stake, 2010; Yin, 2014).

To maintain anonymity, the rural school located in the Pacific Northwest that participated in

this study was assigned the following pseudonym: Olympic Mountain Elementary School.

Olympic Mountain Elementary School was one of four elementary schools in the

district with populations of approximately 550 students in each building. Olympic Mountain,

a school-wide Title I elementary school, had 570 students. Kindergarten was not included in

the classroom observation research. Kindergarten typically has different assessments, part-

time attendance, and other factors that make conclusive statements about methods more

challenging, although the teachers of this grade level utilized tablets and volunteered to

participate in the pre-survey and online survey. This K-5 study included surveying all of the

certificated teachers at Olympic Mountain. Olympic Mountain contains two part-time and

two full-time kindergarten classes and four classes of each first through fifth grade level.
 53

Demographics are important to contemplate when considering making comparisons

of populations in a study. Olympic Mountain Elementary School’s race/ethnicity

demographics for the district included 80% White students, 10% Hispanic, 3.9% of two or

more races, 2.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2% Asian, 1.4% Black, 1.2% American

Indian/Alaskan Native, and 0.5% Pacific Islander (WA State OSPI, 2013). Olympic

Mountain had a very similar demographic makeup as the district for White and Hispanic

populations. Olympic Mountain contained 30 teachers with an average of 11.8 years of

teaching experience, 66.7% who had at least a master’s degree, and 96.2% who met the

definition of highly qualified (WA State OSPI, 2013).The entire building supported a total of

570 students.

Olympic Elementary was designated as a Title I school based on the federal

definition from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Financial assistance

was provided by the U.S. Department of Education to states and school districts who met the

needs of educationally at-risk students (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). Goals of Title

I funding are to provide additional instructional services and provide support to students

identified as failing or most in jeopardy of failing state performance standards in reading,

writing, and math (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).

In July 2012, Washington State, like several states, was granted a waiver of the ESEA

requirements (Washington State OSPI, 2013c). There are four designations under the waiver:

reward, priority, focus, and emerging schools. Reward schools are defined as Title I highest

performing or high progress schools that have met adequate yearly progress in both reading

and math for three years (Washington State OSPI, 2013a). Olympic Mountain Elementary

School was recognized for meeting those criteria in 2012 (Washington State OSPI, 2013a).
 54

Data Collection

Case study research is a thought-provoking methodology and requires arduous work

(Creswell, 2008 & 2014; Merriam 1988; Yin, 2014). In this study, multiple methods were used in

gathering data (see Table 5). By studying the tablet usage and professional development needs in

one building, in depth, the researcher employed a case study design to collect data. Creswell

(2014) recommends “incorporating validity strategies” into the study (p. 201).

Triangulation (see Figure 8) was successfully achieved in this study, as multiple

methods of data collection were employed from numerous viewpoints (Marshall & Rossman,

2011). Data collection for this study occurred from September 2013 to December 2013.

The researcher employed reciprocity by offering $5.00 gift cards for survey participation.

Informed consent was sought from survey participants and written informed consent obtained for

the interviews (see Appendix K). A synopsis of the participants is displayed in Table 6.

Table 6
Participant Synopsis

Age Group % Per Age Range Years of Teaching % of Participants’

Experience Teaching Experience
20-29 years old 10% <2 years 3%

30-39 years old 30% 3-5 years 17%

40-49 years old 30% 6-10 years 20%

50-59 years old 23% 11-15 years 10%

60-69 years old 7% 16 years or more 50%

 55

Respecting the site during observations, data collection, and interviews is important to

minimize disruption (Creswell, 2014; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Yin, 2014). No deception was

involved in this study. The investigator neither supervised nor was employed at the site, school,

or district, avoiding power imbalances (Creswell, 2014; Yin, 2014).

Participation was voluntary and participants were able to withdraw at any time. No

minors or vulnerable participants were included in the survey or interview portions. Gender was

removed from the demographic information prior to administration of the survey. This

modification provided further protection of the participants due to the low number of males in the

site building.

Privacy was maintained through the use of pseudonyms, and anonymity was protected

through coding of all data collection documents, storing and maintaining records through locked

file cabinets, and password protecting computer equipment (Creswell, 2014; Marshall &

Rossman, 2011; Yin, 2014). Data from this study will be stored for three years and then

destroyed in adherence to the Federalwide Assurance Code 45 CFR 46.117 (Federalwide

Assurance Code, 2014).

Pre-survey and online survey. The use of a pre-survey was employed to determine the

extent to which staff were familiar with the term blended learning and whether teachers were

knowledgeable about terminology and models associated with blended learning. This was

assessed through a two-question pre-survey using paper and pencil. Upon completion of the pre-

survey, certificated teachers were directed to work on the online survey.

In 2013, the Pew Research Center developed a study titled, How Teachers Are Using

Technology At Home and In Their Classroom (Purcell, et al., 2013). The study at the Pew

Research Center included a questionnaire that was utilized with permission and modified to
 56

better meet the needs of this current study (Appendix C). Instrumentation of the survey is an

important component of research (Creswell, 2014; Yin, 2014). Modifications to the original

survey required the researcher to employ techniques to establish validity and reliability

(Creswell, 2014; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Yin, 2014).

Modifications were made to establish content validity with the continuous Likert scale

survey tool. Conceptualization and analysis in the field of blended learning was initiated prior to

the Pew Research Likert scale modifications (Polit & Beck, 2006; Trochim, 2006). Polit and

Beck (2006) define content validity as “the degree to which a sample of items, taken together,

constitute an adequate operational definition of a construct” (p. 490). Content validity in the

online teacher survey was established through the validation process (Creswell, 2014; Marshall

& Rossman, 2011; Polit & Beck, 2006; Yin, 2014).

The application of the content validity index (CVI) was employed (Lynn, 1986; Polit &

Beck, 2006). To establish CVI, eight professionals in the field of technology education appraised

each survey item via a 4-point Likert scale, with a score of 3 or 4 as indicative of the

professionals’ validation of the item (Davis, 1992; Polit & Beck, 2006). Agreement of no less

than 78% from the experts was endorsed as acceptable (Lynn, 1986). Items were eliminated or

changed from the professionals’ appraisals, and the CVI results yielded no less than 83%

agreement in this study.

Internal consistency reliability is the degree to which the Likert items in the instrument

are consistent among themselves and with the overall tool (Croasmun & Ostrom, 2011).

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used inclusively in the instrument (Croasmun & Ostrom, 2011;

Gliem & Gliem, 2003). This was effectively accomplished by summing the scales for data

analysis in each section and for the overall instrument. Cronbach’s alpha does not offer
 57

reliability estimates for single Likert items. The investigator implemented the methodology

mentioned above to investigating the reliability of the Likert scale on the tabulated survey

outcomes (Gliem & Gliem, 2003).

Informed consent was obtained prior to the administration of the survey in September

2013, (see Appendix K). The survey tool was designed to determine benefits of a blended

learning environment, measure teacher comfort with tablets as a tool, discover which best

teaching practices were incorporated in classrooms, and identify professional development

needs.

The online teacher survey was administered electronically via email to participants at

Olympic Mountain Elementary School. Study participants opened the link sent to their building

principal who placed the link in a file for the teachers to access the morning of the September

2013 staff meeting. Opportunity to complete both the pre-survey and online survey was given

during the staff meeting. The researcher attended the meeting and provided both written and

verbal instructions to participants during the administration of the pre-survey via paper and

pencil (see Appendix M), then participants immediately completed the teacher survey through

Qualtrics (see Appendix N). Participation was voluntary, and participants provided informed

consent by completing the survey (see Appendix K). The entire intended population completed

both the pre-survey and online survey. Each participant was given a $5.00 coffee cards upon

completion of both the pre-survey and the online survey. Additionally, participants were

provided sign-up sheets to indicate their interest in the interview and classroom observations.

Teacher interviews. The interview questions were piloted with four teachers who were

not associated with the building or district where the research was conducted. The piloting

process is important in refining the interview tools, predicting any inquiries that may arise from
 58

the instrument, and to fortify the research (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). The four educators who

participated in the interview pilot were actively employed in public schools. One was a special

educator with a degree in technology. A second member of the piloting group was responsible

for special program director duties in a small school and was required to utilize technology in the

classroom, customizing it to meet the needs of the students she serves on a daily basis. A third

member was a general education teacher with elementary and middle school experience in

technology. Finally, a general education elementary teacher with a technology degree

participated in piloting the interview questions.

The final interview questions were altered to incorporate the changes suggested by the

results of the pilot. A few redundant questions were eliminated, wording was changed to better

reflect technology terminology, and the decision was made to add a short definition of blended

learning prior to the question about the use of blended learning in the classroom.

Marshall and Rossman (2011) assert that skillful interviewers ask follow-up queries. The

interview questions were divided into two parts: questions for interview one, and then questions

for follow-up based on information gathered in interview one (see Appendices O and P).

Exceptional listening abilities are needed for interviews, which the researcher attained through

work as both a school counselor and school psychologist (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

Participants in the interview component were K-5 teachers from Olympic Mountain

Elementary School. All interviews were conducted on the school campus during school hours of

operation, either in classrooms or a designated school conference room. There were eight

volunteer interview participants interviewed twice with a different set of questions. A total of 16

face-to-face, audio-recorded interviews were conducted (see Appendices O and P). The

researcher utilized Audacity (2014), a free, cross-platform sound editor, which was downloaded
 59

onto a laptop, for interviews. The researcher also transcribed the interviews and developed codes

and themes (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). No translating was required in this study.

Teachers had two methods to share their interest in volunteering for the interview portion

of this study. Teachers could provide their contact information at the end of the Qualtrics survey

indicating they were interested in volunteering (Appendix N), and they also had an opportunity

to write their contact information on a sign-up with the researcher after the electronic survey was

conducted at the site. Nine participants volunteered, though eight were selected based on their

extensive digital technology experience relative to the other participants within the building.

Interviewees provided written informed consent and were allowed to choose to exit the interview

at any time. Participants were given the choice to abstain from answering any questions that they

felt uncomfortable answering (see Appendix K). Interview participants were provided an

opportunity to review the transcript upon completion of the second interview. Participants were

provided with a debrief statement (see Appendix R) and the researcher conducted member

checks (see Appendix U).

Classroom observations. Student engagement factors were measured through a

compilation of on-task classroom behavior, attendance, and disciplinary referrals data. Shapiro

(1987) states, “More than any other method of behavioral assessment, systematic direct

observation represents the most direct and desired approach to data collection” (p. 651). On-task

behavior was measured through what is known as a time-sampling method (Beaty, 2006; Hintze

& Shapiro, 1995). Beaty (2006) describes time sampling as controlled, objective, and providing

results that can be utilized for statistical analysis. Quantitative data was collected through the

tallying of student on-task behavior observations conducted in the time-sampling format. For

other types of research or behavior modification, different factors such as antecedent behavior
 60

and functionality would be of importance. However, for the purposes of this research, the

investigation involved whether students were actively engaged in the material.

On September 23, 2013, the researcher piloted the classroom observation on-task time-

sampling form (Appendix Q). Two teachers with one-to-one tablets in the elementary site school

were the most experienced with tablets, had provided professional development district-wide,

and had multiple years of successful teaching experience. The pilot utilized these two individuals

with strong teaching experience and strong tablet integration expertise. Arrangements were made

to visit the first-grade teacher’s classroom for a “tech buddy” instructional time. The researcher

was introduced to the class as a visitor, and students were told to continue with their regular

instruction. There were 23 first-grade students present. The teacher prepared the students for the

arrival of their tech buddies to explore a new app on their tablets. The app, called Word Photo,

was going to be accessed by the pairs. Twenty-four fifth-grade students arrived with their teacher

to join their first-grade buddies. One student was absent, so a different pairing accommodation

was made. The 47 students partnered up accessing the Word Photo app on the first graders’

tablets. The fifth-grade older buddy was to take a picture using the app and then created a collage

of common character traits. The fifth grader had a sheet with common character traits and

assisted the first grader in choosing words they believed best described him or her. The fifth

grader assisted through the lesson, which was completed in about 15 minutes. Alterations were

made to the time-sampling student engagement form based on the pilot observation to include the

subject of the lesson being taught, the number of tablets employed during the lesson, and the

development of a teacher coding system in order to protect the identity of the teacher (Appendix

Q).
 61

Each classroom observation was conducted towards the beginning of the school day. The

researcher attempted to observe during the morning time frame so fewer variables, such as

subject matter, would be a factor for on-task or off-task behaviors. However, teachers had the

choice of when the observations were to take place. Students were tallied as either on-task or not

on-task every 5 minutes for a total of 30 minutes.

Drawing upon the work of Shapiro (1987), Hintze and Shapiro (1995), and Beaty (2006),

timed observations were conducted on a time-sampling sheet developed by the researcher

(Appendix Q). The tool was designed by the researcher in a simple time-sampling format which

allowed tallies to indicate the number of student’s on-task within the 30-minute observation

period. Data points were arranged in 5-minute intervals. The tool was selected to demonstrate the

quantitative data in easily identifiable terms and with a common understanding relevant to

student engagement. This method provided a high degree of validity and reliability in each time

sampling. The researcher was not employed by the school. Researcher bias was a limited factor

in this measurement. Children of the researcher attend school in the district, though not in the

building where this study was conducted. There were no irregularities or special conditions such

as state testing or district testing during the duration of the observations.

A matrix of Olympic Mountain Elementary School was developed to demonstrate

visually the various methods of tablet usage across and within the varying grade levels (Table 7).

Two classrooms had the highest concentration of tablets: one first-grade and one fifth-grade

classroom with one-to-one tablets (one student per tablet). There were several classrooms with

two-to-one (two students per tablet), and those with fewer than 10 tablets per classroom. There

were also two special education teachers who taught at multiple grade levels and are not shown

on the table, one of whom has one-to-one tablets.

 62

Table 7

Olympic Mountain Elementary School Tablet Configuration

Grade Level Tablet Method Student/Teacher Ratio

Kindergarten <10 tablets (part time) 25/1

Kindergarten <10 tablets (part time) 24/1
Kindergarten <10 tablets (full time) 21/1
Kindergarten <10 tablets (full time) 21/1
First grade <10 tablets 25/1
First grade 2 students per tablet 25/1
First grade <10 tablets 25/1
First grade 1 student per tablet 25/1
Second grade <10 tablets 26/1
Second grade <10 tablets 25/1
Second grade <10 tablets 22/1
Second grade <10 tablets 26/1
Third grade 2 students per tablet 23/1
Third grade <10 tablets 22/1
Third grade <10 tablets 23/1
Third grade <10 tablets 23/1
Fourth grade 2 students per tablet 25/1
Fourth grade <10 tablets 24/1
Fourth grade <10 tablets 24/1
Fourth grade <10 tablets 24/1
Fifth grade <10 tablets 24/1
Fifth grade <10 tablets 23/1
Fifth grade 2 students per tablet 23/1
Fifth grade 1 student per tablet 24/1
 63

Olympic Mountain Elementary staff often borrowed the number of tablets needed to make a class

set depending on how many they already had in their room.

Analytical Methods

IBM SPSS Statistical Software Version 20.0 (IBM SPSS, 2014) was used for data

analysis. Research-based procedures were identified and employed to analyze data. In addition,

descriptive statistics were employed to identify features of the data sets (Tanner, 2012). Graphs

and figures describe the data in detail. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was inclusively used with the

survey instrument (Croasmun & Ostrom, 2011; Gliem & Gliem, 2003). This was effectively

accomplished by summing the scales for data analysis in each section and for the overall

instrument. Cronbach’s alpha does not offer reliability estimates for single Likert items, so the

investigator implemented the methodology described in the data collection section to institute the

reliability of the Likert scale on the tabulated survey outcomes (Gliem & Gliem, 2003). The

Pearson Product Moment Correlation was the statistical test conducted (Tanner, 2012).

Case studies allow for diversity in the researcher’s approach to data collection (Creswell,

2014; Merriam, 2002; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014). The case in this study was one rural elementary

school. Drawing on a mixed methods approach provided a variety of methods to answer the

research questions in this study. These included: a pre-survey, Likert scale online survey,

classroom observations, and interviews, all conducted face-to-face, for a purposeful research

project (See Table 7).

Yin (2014) asserts that the interview is one of the most valuable methods of data

collection in a case study. A total of 16 interviews were conducted, two with each of the eight

teachers who participated in the qualitative portion of this study. Field notes, observations, and
 64

other anecdotal information were collected during the interviews (Creswell, 2014; Marshall &

Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 1988; Yin, 2014).

As interviews are subjective in nature, the researcher diminished bias by being as

impartial and nonjudgmental as possible (Merriam, 1988). Fieldwork was conducted using the

highest ethical and moral standards (Fullan, 2003; Kidder, 2009; Wagner & Simpson, 2009)

and evidence was analyzed in consideration of construct validity (Creswell, 2014, Marshall &

Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 1988; Yin, 2014).

Permission was secured for the research site (see Appendix B). Approval of an

institutional review board, Human Rights Research Committee at Northwest Nazarene

University, granted the researcher permission to begin the study in June of 2013. Informed

consent was obtained (see Appendix K) and an interview protocol was developed (see

Appendices O and P) as recommended by Creswell (2014) Marshall and Rossman (2011), and

Yin (2014).

Hand coding was performed by the researcher in order to maintain high levels of

quality after themes and descriptions were developed from the compilation of data. Coding

consisted of segmenting chunks and developing categories, then labeling with terms called in

vivo terms (Creswell, 2014). A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet was created to compile coding

and develop field notes into themes. Transcription was completed by the researcher for quality

assurance and accuracy after reading through the collection of data. Lincoln and Guba (1985)

suggest analyzing the data involves thinking about what was learned from the findings.

Qualitative validity and reliability were employed throughout the data analysis process

(Creswell, 2014; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 1988; Yin,

2014).
 65

Validity strategies included examining different sources of data (triangulation),

conducting member checking through follow-up with participants to gain both perspective and

perform validity checks, and taking into consideration sources of bias from the researcher

(Creswell, 2014; Yin, 2014). Final strategies employed included the consideration of

information not consistent with the themes and peer debriefing (Creswell, 2014).

Limitations

Yin (2014) says concerns about case study research involve rigor, generalizability, the

time it takes, quantity of data collected, and questions about advantages over other methods of

research. Results in this study are limited to one elementary building where the research was

conducted and may not be representative of urban areas, lower socioeconomic schools, and

schools with higher ethnic diversifications.

Mixed methods research strengthens the study and is a stronger methodology than

qualitative or quantitative methods alone (Creswell, 2014; Yin, 2014). One limitation of the

mixed methods approach is that the researcher must collect a large amount of data to properly

conduct the study (Creswell, 2014; Yin 2014). Both a team of researchers and a larger sample

size would yield a wider applicability. Further research could focus more attention on

discovering the amount of time students need to spend with tablet technology for the

technology to impact achievement.

 66

Chapter IV

Results

Introduction

The contribution from this study is important as rural, elementary-level blended learning

research is limited while high school and college age groups are more widely investigated

(Simon, Nemeth, & McManis, 2013). Making effective choices about pedagogy and how to best

utilize technology devices is critical; this research reflects how professional development would

enable a systems approach in making those effective choices (Pointek, 2013a; Roth, 2012;

Simon, Nemeth, & McManis, 2013; Thiele, 2013). Results reported in this chapter will

demonstrate that in this case study, blended learning terminology and models were unfamiliar to

rural elementary staff.

The effort to discover how to engage K-5 students by utilizing the best teaching practices

in blended learning led to these three primary research questions:

1. What tablet methodology supports best practice in a K-5 blended learning

environment?

2. How does tablet use impact student engagement?

3. With an increase in the use of tablets in classrooms, what are teacher perceptions of

professional development and needs?

Mixed methods data collection incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods proved an

effective strategy to achieve triangulation, as shown in Figure 9 (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 2002;

Yin, 2014).
 67

Figure 9

Triangulation of Data

Interviews

Observations

Survey

Presurvey

The next two sections explain the quantitative and qualitative results from this case study.

An overview of the methodology is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10

Overview of Quantitative and Qualitative Methodology

• Pre-survey
Quantitative • Teacher Survey
• Classroom Observations

• Field Notes & Journaling

Qualitative • Qual Pre-survey/Online Survey
• Interviews
 68

Quantitative Results

Quantitative results were derived from the pre-survey with teachers, the online teacher

survey, and classroom observations.

Pre-survey results. A paper-and-pencil pre-survey was administered to the elementary teachers

in the rural district participating in this study prior to the administration of an online survey.

Because all 30 teachers who had full-time certificated teaching assignments at Olympic

Mountain Elementary School took the pre-survey, participation was 100%. The two questions on

the pre-survey were: (a) Are you familiar with the term blended learning (See Figure 11)? (b)

Are you acquainted with blended learning terminology and models (see Figure 12)? The impetus

for these questions was that blended learning as a best pedagogical practice is not widely known

in the public school elementary setting.

Figure 11

Pre-survey, Question 1 Results

Are you familiar with the term

blended learning?

10%

Yes 10%
No 90%

90%
 69

The researcher asked these questions in a pre-survey because teachers might derive some

familiarity with blended learning and terminology while completing the online survey. Three

teachers answered “yes” to question 1, indicating they were familiar with blended learning, while

27 participants answered “no” (see Figure 11).

The answer to the second question was a resounding no: none of the 30 participants were

familiar with terminology typically associated with blended learning or models (see Figure 12).

Several participants, however, wrote a few statements regarding blended learning. Those

responses are reported within the qualitative section of the results. The figure below

demonstrates the data for question 2 of the pre-survey.

Figure 12

Pre-survey, Question 2 Results

Are you acquainted with blended

learning terminology and models?
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

Yes 0%
No 100%

Online teacher survey results. The online survey was designed to determine the

professional development needs of elementary staff in the area of blended learning and for

teachers to rate how effective they viewed tablet usage to be in their instructional practices.

There were 19 Likert scale questions in the online survey with the following options:
 70

1- Strongly Disagree

2- Disagree

3- Neutral

4- Agree

5- Strongly Agree

Questions 1 and 2 were both demographic questions, and questions 9 and 11 were open-ended

questions. These were excluded from the statistical analysis, but include in the findings. The

remaining 15 questions were all analyzed statistically. A copy of the survey is provided in

Appendix N.

Polit and Beck (2006) indicate the Content Validity Index or CVI, measures the degree

that instrument items are relevant to the content area. More specifically, the researcher engaged

in a process which scrutinized specific survey items, termed the Item Content Validity Index (I-

CVI) before distributing the electronic survey to technology education professionals to appraise

(Polit & Beck, 2006; Trochim, 2006).

Content validity process results are reported in Table 8 (Polit & Beck, 2006; Trochim,

2006). Through the validation process, items were eliminated or altered based on the

professionals’ appraisals (Creswell, 2014; David, 1992; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Polit &

Beck, 2006; Yin, 2014). Lynn (1986) considers agreement of 78% or better from the

professionals’ endorsement to indicate validity; results from the CVI in this study were no less

than 83% agreement. Table 8 displays the 4-point scale continuum as rated by the expert’s

validation of the individual survey items.

 71

Table 8

Content Validity Index (CVI)

Very Quite Sum of Somewhat Not Relevant

Question Relevant Relevant Columns Relevant 1
4 3 3&4 2
Q1 83% 17% 100% 0% 0%

Q2 83% 17% 100% 0% 0%

Q3 50% 33% 83% 17% 0%

Q4 83% 0% 83% 17% 0%

Q5 83% 17% 100% 0% 0%

Q6 33% 50% 83% 17% 0%

Q7 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Q8 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Q9 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Q10 83% 17% 100% 0% 0%

Q11 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Q12 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Q13 67% 33% 100% 0% 0%

Q14 67% 17% 83% 17% 0%

Q15 67% 17% 83% 17% 0%

Q16 67% 17% 83% 0% 17%

Q17 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Q18 67% 33% 100% 0% 0%

Q19 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

 72

Q20 83% 17% 100% 0% 0%

Q21 67% 33% 100% 0% 0%

Q22 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Q23 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Q24 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Q25 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Cronbach’s alpha was employed for reliability. Tavakol and Dennick (2011) state that

Cronbach’s alpha provides “a measure of the internal consistency of a test or scale; it is

expressed as a number between 0 and 1. There are different reports about the acceptable values

of alpha, ranging from 0.70 to 0.95” (p. 53). A higher alpha, near 0.90 would be considered

excellent, and anything closer to 0.5 or close to zero should be discarded (Tanner, 2012; Tavakol

& Dennick, 2011). The survey results of this study were calculated to be .783, which would be

considered “good” for internal consistency.

Classroom observation results. Teachers were responsible to load and keep their tablets

updated for their classrooms. Each teacher had apps that worked best for his or her classroom,

depending on the teacher’s experience, grade levels of the students, students’ preference, and

other factors. Most teachers had their tablets set up in a folder system for students to find their

work and locate apps. Almost every teacher employed Dropbox or Showbie for students to

submit work. Most teachers had district-wide math assessments such as IXL and Accelerated

Reader for reading tests.

Some schools utilize a tablet cart, a rolling cart containing a classroom set of tablets or

other electronic devices for a teacher to utilize during a specific lesson with the intention of
 73

having one tablet per student (Bauland, 2012). The school in this study avoided the cart method

for two reasons. First, teachers found that the maintenance of the tablet cart was challenging, and

second, too much prep time was required prior to lessons to ensure that all tablets had the same

apps loaded with the same version and updates. Their experience with mobile carts and laptops

helped the school collectively eliminate the cart as an option.

The classroom observation results were entered into an Excel spreadsheet with each

classroom numbered 1-10 and each 5-minute increment numbered 1-6 (totaling 30 minutes).

Data included the number of students on-task, the percentage of students on-task, the number of

students off-task, the percentage of students off-task, and finally the tablet method for each class.

The highest percentage of student’s on-task was 100%, or 26 out of 26 students, during a 5-

minute time sampling. Percentages were employed to eliminate class-size as a factor, as two of

the eight classes had smaller numbers of students. One was a special education classroom, and

one class had a smaller Title I reading group.

The class with the greatest number of student’s off-task was the class with fewer than 10

tablets. This class had the lowest on-task rate of 83%. Its highest on-task rate was 92% during the

30-minute observation period. The classes with the highest on-task rates were the two classrooms

with one-to-one tablets. Both had 100% on-task rates for each 5-minute increment and for the

whole 30-minute observation period. The four classrooms with two-to-one tablets had the next

highest on-task rate with only one 5-minute increment showing a 96% on-task rate because one

student was off-task. All other time sampling for the two-to-one classes reflected a 100% on-task

rate. The data also showed that the highest on-task rates were in classrooms where the teachers

had the most experience or familiarity with tablets compared to other teachers in the building,

although they had similar or less teaching experience.

 74

A one-way ANOVA was utilized to determine if differences were present amongst at

least three groups (MacFarland, 2014; McHugh, 2011). After the chi-squared test, a one-way

ANOVA was conducted to evaluate between groups and within groups. This additional analysis

was performed to analyze the data in several different ways. There were three different groupings

for analysis of the tablet usage: (a) classes with one-to-one tablets, (b) classes with two-to-one

tablets, compared to (c) classes with fewer than 10 tablets (see Table 9). An ANOVA compares

several groups, then with a single test, their statistical implication can be calculated (Tanner,

2012). Statistical tests were conducted at p = .05, a 95% confidence interval. A post hoc test was

also performed. A post hoc test, according to Tanner (2012), is “performed after the ANOVA,

after a significant F” (p. 189). There are two degrees of freedom (df) in calculating the value of

F. A post hoc test, the Bonferroni, was selected by the researcher, as experts suggest appropriate

use restricts Type I errors (Guilbaud & Karlsson, 2010; McHugh, 2011; Vialatte & Cichocki,

2008).

Table 9

Student Engagement Classroom Observations and Tablet Methodology

Tablet Method p-value

One-to-one (1) v. <10 tablets (3) .042

Two-to-one (2) v. <10 tablets (3) .038

A post hoc comparison was performed, making multiple comparisons with the tablet

methodology. At the 95% confidence interval, a significant difference was found in two

comparisons at the p = .05 level. Student engagement in the classrooms with one-to-one and two-

to-one tablets was significantly higher than those classes with fewer than 10 tablets. An
 75

independent samples t-test analysis was conducted on the subject area of the lesson being taught.

The test analyzed math vs. non-math subjects such as reading, science, and writing. There was an

n of 6 for math, and an n of 4 for non-math classes. There were no significant differences

(p = .257 at the 0.05 level of significance) between math and non-math subjects.

Chi-squared goodness-of-fit is a statistical test utilized to test the null hypothesis (Laszlo,

Feher et al., 2013; Ludbrook, 2011; McHugh, 2013; Tanner, 2012). A chi-squared goodness-of-

fit test was conducted initially on the classroom observations. The 10 classrooms were averaged

to look at proportions for each of the classrooms. No significant difference was found between

the observed (obtained) and the expected (predicted) frequency in each class.

Qualitative Results

Qualitative results emanated from field notes, journaling, pre-survey questions, open-

ended questions from the electronic teacher survey, and the teacher interviews. All the results are

from the site school, Olympic Mountain Elementary, located in the Pacific Northwest.

Field notes and journaling results. In the planning stages of the study and during data

collection, analyzing of data results, and reflection, the researcher utilized field notes and

journaling (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 2002). Notes were used for planning,

determining research site logistics, and journaling different aspects of the research process.

Qualitative observations in the field were made both onsite and offsite after data gathering

sessions. Journal writing can assist researchers in managing their own emotions and provide

some relief from anxiety (Creswell, 2014; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 2002). Making

notes and journaling during classroom observations were helpful exercises, especially during the

piloting process. The act of going through the classroom observation and detailing some of the

experiences and taking notes in the field assisted the researcher in altering the classroom
 76

observation form to construct a more effective instrument when the actual classroom

observations began.

Pre-survey results. Of the 30 teachers who completed the pre-survey, 90% indicated

they were not familiar with blended learning (see Figure 11), while 100% stated they did not

know terminology and models associated with blended learning (see Figure 12). However, a few

participants made some statements about what they thought blended learning meant in

educational practice.

Pre-survey question 1: Are you familiar with the term blended learning? Although 90%

of the participants responded “no” to the question, five teachers included their ideas about the

definition of blended learning (see Table 10). Two out of the 30 participants indicated that they

were familiar with the term blended learning.

Table 10

Top Three Definitions of Blended Learning from Pre-survey Question 1

Teacher Participant Frequency of Responses (n)

Using a variety of methods/technology 5

Ability to learn with a variety of tools 1

Combining tablets/tech with traditional instruction 1

Pre-survey question 2: Are you acquainted with blended learning terminology and

models? For this question, 100% of 30 participants indicated that they were not familiar with

blended learning terminology or models (see Figure 13), although one participant expressed that

blended learning models included the use of iPads, Promethean Boards, white boards, and other

tools for instruction.

 77

Online survey results. All 30 participants completed the survey for a 100% response

rate. The survey consisted of Likert scale questions, followed by open-ended questions. The

survey was administered to certificated staff members following their completion of the pre-

survey. Twenty-eight of the participants defined the methods of professional development they

preferred, and the top three methods by frequency are displayed in Table 11.

Table 11

Top Three Preferred Methods of Professional Development by Frequency

Preferred Method of Professional Development Frequency of Responses (n)

Hands-on training 17

Face-to-face training 14

Collaborative professional development 8

The overarching theme for the qualitative portion of the online survey was the

improvement of the facilitation of technology. Within the responses, three subthemes emerged:

(a) professional development, (b) district-level technology supports, and (c) resources.

Professional development was the foremost common thread to the enhancement of teacher skills

needed to deliver effective instruction to students.

District-level supports included having professional development time carved out of

teachers’ schedules along with the resources needed to be effective in their positions. Most

participants identified their building as being in a superior position for building-level supports,

although staff appeared to desire more collaboration and desired to have the full scope of

professional development opportunities district wide. Resources identified by participants

included district-level professional development opportunities, acquisition of additional

 78

equipment/devices, and technology support for equipment not working properly to avoid having

to rely on their peers who are busy teaching their own classes.

Interview results. The researcher utilized Audacity (2014), a free, cross-platform sound

editor, which was downloaded onto a laptop for recording interviews (Marshall & Rossman,

2011). Participants were provided with a copy of the research questions and encouraged to

respond at a pace that was comfortable for them.

Measuring the frequency of similar responses from participants is useful in quantifying or

measuring what data participants have in common (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Table 12

displays the development of frequency codes based on the interview participants’ responses

(Creswell, 2014; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 2002).

Table 12

Top 10 Frequency Themes from Interviews

Teacher Participant Frequency of Responses

Incorporation of Tablets into the Classroom 151

Utilization of Apps for Content Areas 84

Technology Use in the Classroom 74

Professional Development Needs: Tablets, Technology 39

Collaboration With Peers/Other Teachers 20

Differentiation of Instruction for Students 18

Engagement of Students in the Material 10

Increase in Student Motivation During Tablet Use 9

Blended Learning Terminology 8

Integration of Technology into Instruction 6

 79

From the frequency analysis and coding of the interviews, themes emerge from the data

(Creswell, 2014). The following statement was provided to interview participants based upon the

results of the teacher responses in the pre-survey indicating a lack of familiarity with blended

learning: The term blended learning in the context of this K-5 study means utilizing different

technology devices as a means to enhance teaching (Christensen, Horn, & Staker, 2013; Horn &

Staker, 2012; Pointek, 2013b).

Emergent themes from the qualitative interviews are shown in Figure 13. Blended

learning, including the integration of technology such as tablet usage into best practice in the

classroom, was one of the themes.

Figure 13

Themes from Interview Data

BLENDED PROFESSIONAL
LEARNING DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL
Technology District & Building Collaboration
Integration Level Differentiation
Tablets Frequency of P.D. Engagement
Teacher Tech Support

One teacher summed up that with all the technology, “the students probably love the tablets the

best.” Some participants use the tablets for all academic subjects to differentiate learning,
 80

facilitate student collaboration, provide direct instruction, encourage student practice, manage

transition times, and improve writing and sequencing of stories.

Professional development was another theme, and factors included both building- and

district-level support, the frequency of professional development, and teacher technology

support. One participant noted that she implements any technology she can into the curriculum.

She reported that she was not a “techie” person, though after evaluating how technology could

enhance her teaching, she was excited to develop her proficiency with technology tools. Another

teacher said for those learning technology, “Don’t give up! Be willing to try new things. Be

fearless and have fun!”

The third theme was the school as the vehicle for teacher collaboration, differentiation for

students, and engagement of students. During the interview, one participant noted,

“Collaboration is so important, not just for the teachers, but the students are collaborating.”

Multiple teachers in the interviews, observations, and survey reported that blended learning, and

specifically tablet usage, is a tool used for differentiation. Advanced students can excel and

execute higher-level tasks while the teacher can do remedial work with those who need more

support. Utilizing technology provides one of the biggest sources of engagement in learning. The

teacher can connect the laptop to their smart board and show the student work on the screen.

Teachers have the ability to gain results of quizzes in seconds and know who is in need of more

assistance at a single moment in time. The students want to see that immediate feedback.

Technology provides the opportunity for teachers to quickly conduct interventions and

assessments on a daily basis. Teachers reported that students understand what to do much more

often and they delve into higher thinking skills.

 81

Participants stated that tablet usage was making them better teachers, and they were able

to explore and fulfill Bloom’s Taxonomy as students were able to explain their thinking (Bloom,

et al., 1956). One participant specified:

I could see the immediate effect upon the children with just one iPad. Now I find our

transition time between activities is quicker than ever. Children have access to apps and

websites that allow them to progress at their own pace and learning levels. The tablets are

beneficial, especially for struggling students. I use the iPads for both lower students and

for higher students.

As well as talking about the benefits of blended learning, teachers also mentioned the

challenges they encountered. A barrier to teacher improvement has been the amount of time

required outside of the regular teaching day to become familiar with blended learning options

and tablet proficiency. Another challenge teachers reported was the time it took to get the tablets

set up in a manner that worked for their classroom and finding the most appropriate apps for

their lesson or content area. Participants expressed a desire to hear from other teachers who have

higher numbers of tablets in their classrooms, utilize webinars and blogs, and have adequate

charging stations for the iPads. To meet another challenge, they developed a tech buddies

program to help students learn how to use apps and manage the iPads. As students practice with

tech buddies, they become comfortable with the apps before they experience them on their own.

Participants relayed the necessity of a professional development continuum or menu of

options for teachers implementing technology into their pedagogy. The idea of a rating system or

evaluation tool would more effectively demonstrate their growth as a teacher in the area of

technology. Several teachers reported they would like more regional or district-level tablet usage

classes to utilize professional development with a broader range educators than just their
 82

building level peers. Teachers wanted to know how to bring more technology to more kids

through professional development opportunities.

Finally, drawbacks of tablet use as reported by participants included the fact that apps get

expensive, and some students may think they are a toy upon initial use, though teachers can show

students how tablets can be used educationally so they are building on their skills. This latter

drawback did not appear to be a factor with teachers who had been using tablets for several

months.

Summary

Chapter IV provided results of this mixed-method, case study research. Both quantitative

and qualitative data were collected in this study of best practices in blended learning in a rural

elementary setting with findings supporting blended learning as a best practice, and improvement

in student engagement with two students, or fewer, per tablet.

Pre-survey results indicated 90% of the participants were not familiar with blended

learning terminology or models. Likert teacher survey results showed preferred methods of

professional development by frequency were hands-on, face-to-face, and collaborative.

Improvement of the facilitation of technology emerged as a predominant theme for the

qualitative portion of the online survey. Three subthemes of teacher needs emerged: (a)

professional development, (b) district-level technology supports, and (c) resources. Teachers

stressed that professional development was needed to enhance their skills in using technology to

deliver effective instruction to students.

Emergent themes were: (a) blended learning, including the use of technology in schools,

tablet usage, and the integration of these elements into best practice in the classroom, was

beneficial and engaging; (b) frequent training at both the building and district levels and teacher
 83

technology support were key to professional development; and (c) teacher collaboration,

differentiation for students, and engagement of students were all pertinent to the role of the

school.

The top three themes were compiled from the qualitative portion of the online survey.

Professional development needs emerged as being the foremost common thread to the

enhancement of teacher skills needed to deliver effective instruction to students, consistent with

Danielson’s Domain 4, professional responsibilities, growing and developing professionally

(Danielson, 2013). District-level supports include having professional development time carved

out of the teacher’s schedule along with the resources needed to be effective. Hands-on was the

most preferred method of professional development. Next teachers indicated they wanted face-

to-face professional development followed by collaborative effort.

Theme One: Collaboration. Participants consistently identified collaboration as being

important to professional development, consistent with Danielson’s (2013) framework for

teaching. Research on the effectiveness of professional learning communities, a method of

collaboration for educators, is supported by the interview results in this study (Danielson, 2013;

DuFour, Dufour, & Eaker, 2008; DuFour et al., 2010; DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Easton, 2009).

Teacher collaboration in a blended learning environment as found in this research included

common planning, problem solving, informal sharing, talking about apps that work for specific

content areas and updates to those apps, ideas from blogs, educational sites and conferences,

formal professional learning communities (PLC’s), strategies for implementation of technology,

sharing resources, and the formation of a building-level technology team. Those elements

support what researchers include in best pedagogical practices in education (Danielson, 2013;
 84

DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Marzano & Brown, 2009; Pacansky-Brock, 2013; Pointek, 2013b;

Schmoker, 2011; Sheninger, 2014).

Theme Two: Blended learning. Teachers identified blended learning, and specifically,

tablet usage, as an effective approach to instruction. The findings in this study support blended

learning as a best practice method to meet the diverse needs of students (Horn & Staker, 2011;

Flanigan, 2014b; Simon, Nemeth, & McManis, 2013; Thiele, 2013). In blended learning,

technology, instruction, and content can be adjusted to each student’s needs (Roseth, Akcaoglu,

& Zellner, 2013; Tao, Fore, & Forbes, 2011). Findings from participants in the interviews,

observations, and Likert survey, all support using technology to meet the spectrum of student

needs (Simon, Nemeth, & McManis, 2013). Advanced students can excel and perform higher-

level tasks while the teacher can work on remediation and repetition with those who require

more support. The site school in this study was proactive in its attainment and implementation of

technology. Implementing technology to the extent to which the leader(s) demonstrate technology

practices through their role as a change agent, was another factor in theme two (DuFour &

Marzano, 2011; Flanigan, 2014a; Fullan, 2014; Pointek, 2013a; Sheninger, 2014; Simon, Nemeth,

& McManis, 2013). At Olympic Mountain, the administrator was leading change by example,

which was a variable in successful building-level integration, as demonstrated in this case study.

Theme Three: Professional development. Evidence from the classrooms observation

results in this study indicated that exemplary implementation of blended learning requires more

than adding tools to classrooms, as noted in research (Johnson, 2012; Pacansky-Brock, 2013;

Simon et al., 2013). It also requires training. Professional development results ranged from

participants who wanted to manage the organization of charging stations for devices, to the more

advanced educator who facilitated training for peers so their students could easily access and
 85

show their work. Building and district-level training, the frequency of professional development,

and teacher technology support were all key to professional development, which supports

research findings (Danielson, 2013; Fullan, 2014; Johnson, 2012). Finally, school as the vehicle

for teacher collaboration, differentiation for students, and engagement of students, were all

pertinent to the role of the school.

 86

Chapter V

Conclusions

Introduction

Blended learning in schools is on the rise (Ambient Insight, 2014; DreamBox, 2014a;

Flanigan, 2014b; Fullan, 2014; Kumar, 2014; Office of Science & Technology Policy, Executive

Office of the President, 2014; Scanlon, 2014; Sheninger, 2014; Stein & Graham, 2014). Efforts

to expand technology in education are evident from President Obama’s recent announcements

and policies. President Obama proclaimed $750 million in pledges from U.S. corporations to

start installing additional technology capabilities in schools (Lederman, 2014; U.S. White House,

2014). The U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy released a 2015 science and

technology budget that encourages innovation for all Americans (Office of Science and

Technology, U.S. White House, 2014). Further, the Obama administration has been supportive of

technology in education with tools such as Open Educational Resources (OER), which releases

the copyright licenses to allow for no-cost use, enhancement, and revisions of materials (Plotkin

& Chien, 2014).

Efforts to outline twenty-first century skills needed for K-12 in the U.S. are evident in

organizations such as Partnership for 21st Century Skills, who indicate that students need “digital

age literacy, inventive thinking, effective communication, and high productivity” (Kumar, 2014,

p. 177). In considering the most effective ways to address changes needed in schools, Fullan

(2014) considers technology as the “wrong driver” and “pedagogy” as the “right driver” (p. 25).

Fullan (2014) suggests:

 87

The investment in technology has largely been a matter of acquisition—buy, buy, buy—

not a matter of figuring out how pedagogy (new forms of instruction) can use computers,

personal devices, software, and the like to deepen and accelerate learning (p. 36).

In schools, the use of a tablet device is becoming more common (Fullan, 2014; Getting &

Swainey, 2012; Huang, Clark, & Wedel, 2013; McLester, 2012; Sheninger, 2014; Stein &

Graham, 2014). The intent of this study was to explore best pedagogy practices in a K-5 blended

learning environment and the use of tablets in the classroom. The researcher’s desire to discover

how to engage K-5 students by utilizing the best teaching practices in blended learning led to

these three primary questions:

1. What tablet methodology supports best practices in a K-5 blended learning

environment?

2. How does tablet use impact student engagement?

3. With an increase in the use of tablets in classrooms, what are teacher perceptions of

professional development and needs?

This study examined factors of student engagement in a blended learning environment

through a mixed methods, case study design. The researcher investigated blended learning as a

best practice in a public rural elementary school environment. The participants were from

Olympic Mountain Elementary (pseudonym) in the Pacific Northwest. Chapter V details the

interpretation of the results and themes, draws conclusions, makes recommendations for further

research, and provides implications for professional practice. Danielson’s instructional

guidelines for teaching were utilized as the educational framework for this research.
 88

Summary of the Study

As demonstrated in Figure 9, a mixed methods study was developed to address the

comprehensive aspects of blended learning including best practices in pedagogy and student

engagement in a K-5 setting (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 2002). Multiple sources of

quantitative and qualitative data comprised this mixed-method case study research design

(Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Merriam 1988; Yin, 2014).

The researcher endeavored to determine whether there is a relationship between student

engagement and blending learning environments by examining quantitative data from a pre-

survey, a Likert scale survey, and classroom observations. Qualitative data included results from

field notes and journaling, a pre-survey, open-ended online survey responses, and interviews.

Quantitative analysis. Data from several methods were analyzed for this study. Data

was collected from two pre-survey questions, an online multiple choice survey, and classroom

observations.

Pre-survey. The paper-and-pencil pre-survey administered to certificated teachers at the

onset of this study provided evidence, as shown in Figure 14, that blended learning was

unfamiliar to the rural elementary school teachers in this study. Further, 100% of the participants

in the pre-survey indicated that they were not familiar with blended learning models or

terminology.
 89

Figure 14

Pre-survey Summary

Are you familiar

with the term •90% No
blended
learning?
•10% Yes
•100% No
Are you
acquainted with
blended learning
terminology and
models? •0% Yes
While research has shown that blended learning environments and the integration of technology in

classroom activities can be an effective means of learning for many students, the pre-survey

findings in this study communicates a lack of familiarity with blended learning as a best practice

and as research-based good pedagogy (Beaudry, 2011; Lefton, 2012; Richardson, 2010; Riddle,

2010; Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012; Ruiling & Overbaugh, 2009).

Likert scale survey. There were 30 participants who completed the survey, which

represents a participation rate of 100%. Supporting current research trends, 73% of the

participants in this study thought students were more engaged when utilizing tablet devices

(Bauland, 2012; Beaudry, 2011, Chong, 2012; Gathany, 2012; Goldstein, 2010; Shaw, 2010). An

overwhelming 93% of participants would seek professional development opportunities involving

 90

digital technologies and 97% of those staff in this case study were interested in increasing their

digital technology skills.

Classroom observations. Classroom observations were conducted to measure the

relationship between student engagement and tablet methods. A matrix of Olympic Mountain

Elementary School demonstrated various methods of tablet usage across and within the varying

grade levels (Table 7). Both students from classes with ratios of one student per tablet and two

students per tablet were significantly more engaged than students from classrooms with fewer

than 10 tablets. Higher engagement rates support positive learning outcomes, as evidenced in

research (Christenson et al., 2008; Christenson, Stout, & Pohl, 2012; Christenson, Reschly, &

Wylie, 2013; Finn & Zimmer, 2013; Marzano & Brown, 2009; Raftery, Grolnick, & Flamm,

2013; Reschly & Christenson, 2013; Skinner & Pitzer, 2013).

In answer to the first question in this study, “What tablet methodology supports best

practices in a blended learning environment?” results from this study indicate one-to-one and

two-to-one methods proved to be equally effective, and both showed significantly higher rates of

engagement over the classrooms with fewer than 10 tablets. This study adds to current literature

that blended learning transforms and augments effective teaching, and shows higher rates of

student engagement with more devices in the classroom (Christensen, Horn, & Staker, 2013;

Horn & Staker, 2012; Pointek, 2013b). Several factors could impact those results: teacher

experience, comfort level with tablets, professional development, and teacher time spent

implementing technology into the daily routine. Teachers who had the most tablets in their

classrooms had made assertive efforts to gain the technology through using professional

development money, trading instructional leadership class offerings in exchange for technology,

using PTA funding, and seeking additional funding opportunities for technology. These findings
 91

support the literature indicating public school technology integration is varied from district to

district and state to state and financial commitment is required to successfully deliver blended

learning options (Bauland, 2012; Chong, 2012; Hoyle & Kutka, 2008; Lefton, 2012; Riddle, 2010;

Ruiling & Overbaugh, 2009). Also in this case study, the principal in the site building was a

proponent of technology and was instrumental in securing devices when other buildings within

the district were more reluctant pursuers of technology. This supports current research showing

the influence of administration in successful technology integration (DuFour & Marzano, 2011;

Fullan, 2014; Sheninger, 2014).

Qualitative analysis. Encouraging results for staff and students were found in this study,

despite the slow implementation of technology in public schools (Bauland, 2012; Hoyle & Kutka,

2008; Lefton, 2012; Quillen, 2010; Richardson, 2010; Riddle, 2010; Ruiling & Overbaugh, 2009).

Qualitative data analysis from the pre-survey, open-ended Likert online survey questions, and

interviews offered common themes which connect to the quantitative data (Creswell, 2014;

Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 1988; Yin, 2014).

Pre-survey. Surprisingly, 90% of the participants were not familiar with the term

blended learning, and 100%, of 30 participants, indicated that they were not familiar with

blended learning terminology or models (see Figure 15), though one participant expressed that

blended learning models included the use of iPads, Promethean Boards, white boards, and other

tools for instruction. Findings indicated that as the educators learned blended learning

terminology, they became aware of their practices within the scope of blended learning as a

pedagogy.

Likert survey, open-ended questions. After completing the pre-survey, 30 participants

completed the online survey, representing a 100% participation rate. There were Likert
 92

questions, followed by open-ended questions at the end of the online survey. The top three

themes were compiled from the qualitative portion of the online survey. Professional

development needs emerged as being the foremost common thread to the enhancement of teacher

skills needed to deliver effective instruction to students. This is consistent with the Growing and

Developing Professionally component of Danielson’s Domain 4 (Danielson, 2013). The needs

included both district-level and building-level supports. District-level supports include allowing

professional development time to be carved out of the teacher’s schedule along with providing

the resources needed to be effective. Most participants identified their building as being in a

superior position for in-house supports.

Hands-on was the most preferred method of professional development. Teachers

indicated they wanted face-to-face professional development followed by collaborative effort.

Staff desired more collaborative and wide-ranging professional development opportunities,

including opportunities to collaborate with other teacher’s district wide. This is consistent with

the Participating in the Professional Community component of Danielson’s Domain 4

(Danielson, 2013).

Interviews. Evidence from the teacher interviews in this study support other researchers’

evidence of the positive instructional benefits of incorporating technology into public schools in

America (Bauland, 2012; Christensen, Horn, & Staker, 2013; Colandrea, 2012; Goldstein, 2010;

Malone, 2012; Pacansky-Brock, 2013; Pickett, 2012). A total of 16 interviews were conducted at

Olympic Mountain Elementary utilizing Audacity (2014), two interviews with each of the eight

teachers who participated in the qualitative portion of this study (see Appendices O and P). From

the frequency and coding of the interviews, themes emerged from the data (Creswell, 2014;

Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Participants reported that using technology as a tool is motivating
 93

for students and enables students to achieve higher levels of learning. They indicated that

students are in the classroom right away in the morning, even coming early to work on their

projects, and sometimes stay in at recess to work. Student motivation shows in their projects.

Participants reported that students appear challenged and motivated when they receive

immediate feedback and can monitor their learning progress. Students are proud of their

achievements and empowered to strive for higher goals, according to participants. Self-

confidence builds as students develop a “can do” attitude, because they know how far they have

come and they anticipate their next step in learning. One teacher of first graders stated that “kids

like the visual aspect; when things move around, students can get connected with it.” Teachers

reported that tablets enhance student learning and provide additional support for individual

needs.

Theme One: Collaboration. Participants consistently identified collaboration as being

important to professional development, consistent with Danielson’s (2013) framework for

teaching. Research on the effectiveness of professional learning communities, a method of

collaboration for educators, is supported by the interview results in this study (Danielson, 2013;

DuFour, Dufour, & Eaker, 2008; DuFour et al., 2010; DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Easton, 2009).

Teacher collaboration in a blended learning environment as found in this research included the

following: common planning, problem solving, and informal sharing; talking about apps that

work for specific content areas and updates to those apps; gathering ideas from blogs,

educational sites and conferences; participating in formal professional learning communities

(PLCs); working together on strategies for implementing technology, sharing resources; and

forming building-level technology teams. Those activities support what researchers include in

best pedagogical practices in education (Danielson, 2013; DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Marzano &
 94

Brown, 2009; Pacansky-Brock, 2013; Pointek, 2013b; Schmoker, 2011; Sheninger, 2014). In the

teacher interviews, one participant reported, “Collaboration is so important, not just for the

teachers, but the students are collaborating.” Interviewees reported that students seem to have a

better understanding of their work, and they delve into higher-level thinking skills. This supports

the Setting Instructional Outcomes component of Danielson’s Domain 1.

Theme Two: Blended learning. Blended learning was defined for teacher participants in

the interview portion of this study, as blended learning is a broad term which can mean different

things to different people. The term blended learning in the context of this K-5 study means

utilizing different technology devices as a means to enhance teaching (Christensen, Horn, &

Staker, 2013; Horn & Staker, 2012; Pointek, 2013b). Blended learning, including the use of

technology in schools, tablet usage, and the integration of these elements into best practice in the

classroom, emerged as the second theme.

Teachers identified blended learning, and specifically, tablet usage, as an effective

approach to instruction. The findings in this study support blended learning as a best practice

method to meet the diverse needs of students (Horn & Staker, 2011; Flanigan, 2014b; Simon,

Nemeth, & McManis, 2013; Thiele, 2013). In blended learning, technology, instruction, and

content can be adjusted to each student’s needs (Roseth, Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Tao, Fore,

& Forbes, 2011). Findings from participants in the interviews, observations, and Likert survey

support using technology to meet the spectrum of student needs (Simon, Nemeth, & McManis,

2013). Advanced students can excel and perform higher-level tasks while the teacher can work

on remediation and repetition with those who require more support.

Embedding technology into learning is an ongoing practice that varies greatly depending

on funding, leadership, and professional development practices (Beaudry, 2011; Goldstein, 2010;
 95

Shaw, 2010; Velez, 2012). Public schools must integrate technology to successfully deliver

blended learning options, and this integration clearly requires a financial commitment (Bauland,

2012; Chong, 2012; Hoyle & Kutka, 2008; Lefton, 2012; Riddle, 2010; Ruiling & Overbaugh,

2009). The site school in this study was proactive in its attainment and implementation of

technology. The leader of Olympic Mountain Elementary made technology use a priority and

advocated for the needs of the building, and teachers within the building took advantage of all

available opportunities to gain digital devices. Further, most of the teachers were self-taught.

Rather than learning through formal professional development, they instead spent their time

outside of the classroom to become proficient and then implemented that learning inside their

classrooms.

Implementing technology through leaders who demonstrate technology practices through

their role as a change agent was another factor in theme two (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Flanigan,

2014a; Fullan, 2014; Pointek, 2013a; Sheninger, 2014; Simon, Nemeth, & McManis, 2013). At

Olympic Mountain, the administrator was leading change by example, which was a variable in

successful building-level integration, as demonstrated in this case study. Teachers involved in this

study implemented technology through use of various tools, such as the Promethean board,

ActiVote, flip charts, YouTube videos, Internet, snippets of songs, document camera, and

different apps for different content areas. Teachers reported seeing engagement and involvement

improve when they used these tools.

Interview participants reported that of all the technology, “the students probably love the

tablets the best.” They are mobile and the students love them. The teacher can connect the laptop

to a smart board and show the students’ work on the screen. The students want to see that

immediate feedback. Tablets and other forms of technology enable teachers to employ various
 96

methods of quickly implementing interventions and assessing students on a daily basis. Teachers

are able to have results of quizzes in seconds and know which students need more support. This

supports current research and the Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy in

Danielson’s Domain 1 (Danielson, 2013; Pointek, 2013a; Stein & Graham, 2014).

Although utilizing technology provides one of the biggest sources of engagement in

learning, as evidenced in this study via classroom observations, interview data, and the teacher

survey, a digital divide gap exists between schools usually due to funding. The literature

provided mixed reviews as to whether the divide is narrowing (Chong, 2012; Reiss 2013). Stein

and Graham (2014) indicate that site mobility, accessibility, enhanced knowledge, and

diminished expenses with blended learning provide some fiscal incentives for implementing

technology. While fiscal benefits may exist, they were not perceptible in the findings of this

study.

Theme Three: Professional development. The classroom observation results in this

study, as well as results from other research, indicated that exemplary implementation of blended

learning requires more than adding tools to classrooms (Johnson, 2012; Pacansky-Brock, 2013;

Simon, Nemeth, & McManis, 2013). It also requires training. With the technology come

challenges for teachers who are not as comfortable with it as their peers. Developing technology

use skills within the educators is key to successful blended learning for students (Pacansky-

Brock, 2013; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2014a; Sheninger, 2014; Stein & Graham,

2014).

Professional development comments ranged from participants who wanted to manage the

organization of charging stations for devices, to the more advanced educator who facilitated

training for peers so their students could easily access and show their work. By developing a
 97

building technology team, Olympic Mountain Elementary staff members have ensured they can

maintain the progression and use of technology at the forefront of education in their building.

The building-level technology team has provided professional development based on the needs

in the building, though it was clear through the survey, interviews, and classroom observations

that district-level professional development and collaboration is desired. The district has not had

a technology levy, though that was brought up by several participants. Tailoring professional

development to staff needs and forming levels of technology advancement were appealing to

several teachers. Building and district-level training, frequent professional development, and

teacher technology support were all key to professional development, which supports other

research findings (Danielson, 2013; Fullan, 2014; Johnson, 2012). However, the professional

development findings in this study were in contrast to Pointek’s (2013a) statement that limited

professional development is required as the practice of blended learning is child-focused. While

professional development is paramount for both teacher and student success, the school as the

system in which teacher collaboration, differentiation for students, and engagement of students,

were all pertinent to the role of the school.

Conclusions

The results of this study enhance the body of literature in blended learning practices

(Creswell, 2014; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995). Teachers

overwhelmingly conveyed that blended learning facilitates their improvement as professionals,

makes their students more productive, and results in elevated test scores. This case study

research set in a rural, elementary school help fill a gap in the literature about blended learning

and student engagement.

 98

Teachers indicated they have sufficient access to the tools needed to teach to specific

learning targets. Findings suggest teachers self-evaluate their skills as teachers more frequently,

reflecting on their instructional practices. Results indicated that educators who have implemented

blended learning practices cannot imagine going back to traditional classrooms as evidenced by

their ongoing formative assessments. Participants remarked that having the ability to constantly

assess (both quantitatively and qualitatively) and gauge the extent to which their students were

absorbing the content, allowing for continuous diagnostic data to the teacher, a powerful tool for

educators.

Findings from the data in this study support research suggesting that engagement can be a

predictor of student outcomes (Anderman & Patrick, 2013; Finn & Zimmer, 2013; Reeve, 2013;

Reschly & Christenson, 2013; Skinner & Pitzer, 2013). Teachers utilizing tablets in this study

drew on a variety of different strategies to engage their students and were intentional about their

methods to keep learning fresh, even if they did not find success on the first attempt. With tablet

use, participants promoted student collaboration, which teaches students valuable social skills

and allows students to be the teacher. Student-led discussions and students teaching their peers

leads to higher levels of learning, both of which were observed by the researcher in this study.

Whole brain research and other research-based strategies are powerfully combined in a blended

learning environment resulting in seamless differentiation for students. Strategies such as having

students take video footage of their projects and learning demonstrate evaluative strategies, the

pinnacle of Bloom’s taxonomy. Findings from this study indicate higher levels of student

engagement which reflects a promising learning environment for schools where blended learning

has been implemented.

 99

Implications and Challenges for Professional Practices

Based on the findings in this research study, schools need to define their goals and vision

towards effective implementation of technology (Fullan, 2014, Sheninger, 2014; Stein &

Graham, 2014). Rather than identifying technology as a separate entity, schools must fully

integrate technology into current pedagogical practices and move forward to involve district and

community stakeholders (Fullan, 2014; Johnson, 2012; Sheninger, 2014; Stein & Graham, 2014).

Technology leaders generally manage the infrastructure and technical aspects of integration,

though fiscal oversight and input from board members, parents, and community members are

needed to determine how to fund the infrastructure and growth needs.

Instructional leaders should outline professional development that incorporates blended

learning for teachers, enabling effective twenty-first century learning for students, such as

depicted in Figure 16. Transferring traditional methods of instructional pedagogy to a blended

learning classroom will be inadequate in the 2014 classroom and beyond. Students need skills

such as those shown in the Framework for 21st Century Learning, as they live in a complex

world and require skills to effectively navigate their learning now and in the future (see Figure

15).

Findings from both qualitative and quantitative data indicate that teaching practices are

always changing, and there are always ways to improve. Teachers want their students to

improve, and adapting new methods to reach all learners is appealing. Formulating a plan to

implement CCSS, teaching frameworks, and other mandates may seem overwhelming, but with

intentional planning and drawing on the benefits of blended learning practices, teachers and

administrators can help students meet and achieve the twenty-first century skills required to

succeed.
 100

Figure 15
Framework for 21st Century Learning

SOURCE: Partnership for 21st Century Skills (http://www.p21.org/)

Today’s students are what some call “digital natives” who are growing up in a technology-

oriented society and who expect digital tools to be a part of their learning environment (Stein &

Graham, 2014). If educators have not fully integrated technology into pedagogical practices, how

can schools provide students with twenty-first century skills as outlined in Figure 15? Fullan

(2014) suggests that technology is:

1. irresistibly engaging for students and teachers,

2. elegantly efficient and easy (from a technical standpoint) to use,

3. ubiquitous 24/7, and

4. steeped in real-life problem solving (p. 146).

 101

Fullan calls for a “new pedagogy” in which pupils and educators work collaboratively, though in

this study, the new pedagogy already exists, and it is called blended learning. It appears that

blended learning, as a best practice, still has not had widespread awareness and application in the

public school setting. While blended learning as discussed earlier in this paper has different

definitions and applications, blended learning terminology and models are still not widely known

throughout some sectors of education.

Recommendations for Future Research

Fullan (2014) states that “technology is running wild,” which provides abundant, though

perplexing, “implications for implementation” (p. 12). We will need the qualities of Kirtman’s

“competent leader” who is willing to take risks, establish relationships, provide direction through

a collaborative plan, put the good of the school first, maintain an earnestness for results, and

pledge unceasing growth (Fullan, 2014; Kirtman, 2013).

There is little research about blending learning practices in public schools at the

elementary level, and even less at the early childhood education level (Beaudry, 2011; Bennett,

2012; Gathany, 2012; Lefton, 2012; Pass, 2008; Riddle, 2010; Ruiling & Overbaugh, 2009).

Roth (2012) reports only 36% of students were equipped with the readiness necessary to enter

kindergarten. This study supports the finding from other studies that blended learning is one of

the best teaching practices while it helps fill that early childhood gap. Further studies could

investigate how to align early learning needs in a blended learning environment while addressing

concerns that young children already spend too much time with technology rather than adult or

peer interaction.
 102

Technology leaders or those who work directly in digitally-related fields may be more

adept at understanding the spectrum of options available to educators, indicating the need for

professional development among administrators who are responsible for teaching and learning.

Professional development is required for teachers as well to address consistent, best-practices

application of technology integration. The results from this research will help public schools plan

how to integrate technology into current pedagogical practices and realize the professional

development commitments required for effective implementation. Districts will need to plan the

infrastructure, determine technology needs, and develop a funding approach while matching

professional development to the identified planning. Without sufficient professional development

and planned implementation, teachers have devices that sit unused or are minimally used as an

add-on in the classroom, rather than having the benefits of full integration in a blended learning

environment.

The results of this study support Scanlon (2014) who ascertains that technology

eliminates obstacles between casual and more prescriptive education practices. Schools in the

beginning stages of discerning how to effectively integrate technology into their teaching

methods must evaluate their current focus, maintain resolve to pursue effective decisions, and

manage dynamic transformation (Fullan, 2014). Further challenges include: developing needed

infrastructure, overcoming topographical challenges, managing the imbalance of access to

certain groups or regions, and recognizing technology users are complex with different levels of

proficiency (de Waard, 2014).

Some challenges in blended learning practices identified by teachers in this study include:

finding time to really delve into the apps available for each content area, effectively

implementing their digital devices, matching learning targets, aligning their work with the
 103

Common Core State Standards, following district-adopted frameworks such as Danielson’s

work, and determining which blended learning techniques are worth their time. Concerns

surfaced about how to best obtain assistance with equipment when it is not working properly,

though teachers recognized that they have to be resilient to work through issues and problem

solve.

Parsons (2014) warns educators not to overlook wisdom gained from historical

pedagogical practices and remember what they have already learned while accepting technology-

driven practices. From Bloom’s work in the 1950’s, we know students access higher cognitive

levels of application, comprehension, and knowledge, when they engage in peer-to-peer learning

(Bloom et al., 1956). Learning is taking place in more casual interactions between students as

reported by teachers in this study. Student-to-student learning is taking place as they assist each

other finding websites, tools, apps, and other supports.

While the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), instructional frameworks, and teacher

evaluations were not the primary focus of this research study, they are connected to best

practices in teaching and to blended learning, which were the focus of this research (Danielson,

2012; DreamBox, 2014a; Fullan, 2014; Murphy & Regenstein, 2012). Both the online teacher

survey and the teacher interviews included questions about CCSS, teaching frameworks, and

teacher evaluations, because they are leading topics among educators and they encompass the

many challenges educators face in 2014 and beyond. One interview participant stated about

CCSS, “The Common Core (CCSS) and technology blend together nicely as we are working

towards higher-order thinking.” Teachers are being asked or required to demonstrate student

growth, and participants in this study utilize the tablets as a tool to demonstrate the work of the

students. Using Dropbox or Showbie, participants’ students chart and graph their own progress.
 104

Conference time is frequently utilized for elementary students to demonstrate their learning

growth throughout the year, though with tablets and digital equipment, students are leading those

conferences with a video of their progress. The site district employs Guaranteed Viable

Curriculum (GVC) standards and has aligned those to CCSS.

 105

References

Ackerman, G. (2009). Information technology in the K-12 classroom: Curriculum and

instruction reflecting emerging capacity and paradigms (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from PQDT Open Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3384713)

Ambient Insight (2011). The U.S. market for self-paced products and services: 2010-2015

forecast and analysis. Retrieved

from http://www.ambientinsight.com/Reports/eLearning.aspx

Ambient Insight. (2014). Learning technology research taxonomy, research methodology,

product definitions, and licensing model. Retrieved from

http://www.ambientinsight.com/Default.aspx

American Psychological Association. (2013). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of

conduct. Retrieved from http://apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

Anderman, E., & Patrick, H. (2013). Achievement goal theory, conceptualization of

ability/intelligence, and classroom climate. In Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 173-191). New York, NY:

Springer.

Anderson, A., Christenson, S., & Lehr, C. (2004). School completion and student engagement:

Information and strategies for educators. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School

Psychologists. Retrieved from

http://www.nasponline.org/resources/principals/nasp_compleducators.pdf

Apple. (2014). Apple Store products and resources. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/
 106

Appleton, J., Christenson, S., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. (2006, October). Measuring cognitive and

psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of

School Psychology, 44(5), 427-445.

Association of Washington School Principals. (2013). Frameworks for Teacher/Principal

Evaluation Project resource site. Retrieved

from http://www.awsp.org/AWSP/Resources/LeadershipFramework

Audacity Version 2.0.4. (2014). [Freeware]. Available from http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

Bauland, D. (2012). Opinion and practice in a tech-successful elementary school: The 21st

century classroom (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database. (AAT 1532178)

Beaty, J.J. (2006). Observing development of the young child. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education.

Beaudry, D. (2011). Technology and fifth grade teaching: A study of teacher reported classroom

practice, professional development, access and support (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (AAT 3496474)

Bempechat, J., & Shernoff, D. (2013). Parental influences on achievement motivation and

student engagement. In Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of

research on student engagement (pp. 315-342). New York, NY: Springer.

Bennett, K.R. (2012). Less than a class set. Learning & Leading with Technology, 12, 22-25.

Betts, F. (1992). How systems thinking applies to education. Educational Leadership: Improving

School Quality, 50(3), 38-41.

Berlin, I. (1993). The hedgehog and the fox. Chicago, IL: Elephant Paperbacks.
 107

Bhuyan, M.H., & Khan, S.A. (2014, January). Teaching a numerical analysis course for

electrical engineering students in the cognitive domain. International Journal of

Electrical Engineering Education, 51(1), 82-92. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.7227/IJEEE.51.1.7

Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational

objectives: The classification of educational goal. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New

York: McKay.

Boynton, M., & Boynton, C. (2005). The educator’s guide to preventing and solving discipline

problems. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Brunsell, E., & Horejsi, M. (2013, March). Flipping your classroom in one “take.” The Science

Teacher, 80(3), 8-8.

Burns, M. (2013, June). The future of professional learning. Learning & Leading with

Technology, 6, 14-18.

Butler, K. (2010, October). A small district’s big innovator. District Administration, 46(9), 78-

80. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com/article/small-districts-big-

innovator

Cavanaugh, C., & Hargis, J. (2014, May). An engaged and engaging mobile learning ecosystem.

eLearn Magazine, 5(2). Retrieved from

http://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=2627709

Chong, H. (2012). Perception and use of instructional technology: Teacher candidates are early

adopters of innovation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Open Dissertations

and Theses database. (AAT 3513740)

 108

Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation

will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2013, May). Is K-12 blended learning disruptive? An

introduction of the theory of hybrids. Retrieved

from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/hybrids/

Christenson, S., Reschly, A., Appleton, J., Berman, S., Spanjers, D., & Varro, P. (2008). Best

practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best

practices in school psychology V (pp. 1099-1119). Washington, DC: National

Association of School Psychologists.

Christenson, S., Stout, K., & Pohl, A. (2012). Check & connect: A comprehensive student

engagement intervention: Implementation with fidelity. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.

Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (2013). Handbook of research on student engagement.

New York, NY: Springer.

Colandrea, J. (2012). The diffusion of computer-based technology in K-12 schools: Teachers’

perspectives (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Open Dissertations and

Theses database. (AAT 3518848)

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conduction and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

 109

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Croasmun, J. T., & Ostrom, L. (2011). Using Likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal of

Adult Education, 40(1), 19-22.

Curtis, H. (2013). A mixed methods study investigating parental involvement and student success

in high school online education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwest Nazarene

University, Nampa, ID.

Danielson, C. (2012, November). Observing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 70(3).

Retrieved from http://www.ASCD.org

Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching: Evaluation instrument. Princeton, NJ:

Danielson Group.

Danielson Group. (2014). Website and resources. Retrieved from

http://www.danielsongroup.org/

Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied

Nursing Research, 5(4), 194-197.

DeNisco, A. (2013, March). Technology from the CIO perspective: Tablet integration takes hold

in school. District Administration, 3, 62-62.

DreamBox Learning (2014). Website and resources. Retrieved from http://www.dreambox.com/

DreamBox Learning (2014a). Blended learning innovations: 10 major trends, DreamBox

Learning, Inc., in partnership with Getting Smart [White paper]. Retrieved from

http://www.dreambox.com/white-papers/blended-learning-innovations-10-major-trends
 110

DreamBox Learning (2014b). Intelligent adaptive learning: An essential element of 21st century

teaching and learning [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.dreambox.com/white-

papers/intelligent-adaptive-learning-an-essential-element-of-21st-century-teaching-and-

learning

DreamBox Learning (2014c). Introduction to blended learning for elementary schools:

Personalizing math learning in the K-5 classroom, 2014 update [White paper]. Retrieved

from http://www.dreambox.com/white-papers/introduction-to-blended-learning-for-

elementary-schools

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R. & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for

professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., & Marzano, R.J. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom

leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Dweck, C. (1999). Self-Theories: Their roles in motivation, personality, and development.

Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Easton, L.B. (2009). Protocols for professional learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Eccles, J., & Wang, M.T. (2013). Part I commentary: So what is student engagement anyway? In

Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student

engagement (pp. 133-145). New York, NY: Springer.

Edmodo. (2014). Website and resources. Retrieved from http://www.edmodo.com/

 111

Federalwide Assurance Code. (2014). Retrieved from

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/assurances/filasurt.html

Finn, J., & Zimmer, K. (2013). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In

Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student

engagement (pp. 97-131). New York, NY: Springer.

Flanigan, R. (2014, January 29a). Administrators search for tools, lead by example. Education

Week: Sizing up Blended Learning, 33(19), 15. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/go/blended-learning

Flanigan, R. (2014, January 29b). Teacher ed. ramps up tech focus, adapting to digital

needs. Education Week: Sizing Up Blended Learning, 33(19), 14-17. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/go/blended-learning

Flumerfelt, S., & Green, G. (2013). Using Lean in the flipped classroom for at risk students.

Educational Technology Society, 16(1), 356-366.

Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the

concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

Fredette, M. (2012, January). A time for tablets. Technological Horizons in Education Journal,

1, 54-56.

Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.
 112

Gathany, N.C. (2012). Expert instructional designers’ views of the impact of accessibility

requirements on e-learning instructional strategies (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from PQDT Open Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3547015)

Gentile, M. (2012, November). The importance of managing iPads in the classroom. The

Education Digest, 11, 11-13.

Getting, S., & Swainey, K. (2012, August). First graders with iPads? Learning & Leading with

Technology, 8, 24-27.

Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003, October). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting

Cronbach's alpha reliability coeffiecient for Likert-type scales. Paper presented at the

Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community

Education, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from

https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/344/Gliem+&+Gliem.pdf?sequence

=1

Goldstein, D.L. (2010). Integration of geospatial technologies into K-12 curriculum: An

investigation of teacher and student perceptions and student academic achievement

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Open Dissertations and Theses database.

(AAT 3406541)

Gradel, K., & Edson, A. (2011). Cooperative learning: Smart pedagogy and tools for online and

hybrid courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2). doi:10.2190/ET.39.2.i

Green, N., & Evans, J. (2014). The future of personalized learning in elementary, including key

results from Project Tomorrow’s Speak Up 2012 National Research Project [White

paper]. Retrieved from http://www.dreambox.com/white-papers/future-personalized-

learning-elementary
 113

Guilbaud, O., & Karlsson, P. (2010). Confidence regions for Bonferroni-based closed tests

extended to more general closed tests. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 21(4),

682-707.

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-

based TRACK development. In Maddux, C.D. (Ed.), Research Highlights in Technology

and Teacher Education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in

action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related

instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229.

Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com

Hintze, J.M., & Shapiro, E.S. (1995). Best practices in the systematic observation of classroom

behavior. In A. Thomas & T. Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in school psychology – III.

Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Horn, M.B. (2013, May). Is K-12 blended learning disruptive? It depends [Web log post].

Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/is-k-12-blended-learning-disruptive-

it-depends/

Horn, M.B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Retrieved from

http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-Rise-of-K-

12-Blended-Learning.pdf

Horn, M.B., & Staker, H. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Retrieved

from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-

content/uploads/2012/05/Classifying-K-12-blended-learning2.pdf
 114

Horner, R.H., & Sugai, G. (2000). School-wide behavior support: An emerging initiative (special

issue). Journal of Behavioral Interventions, 2, 231-233.

Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., & Horner, H.F. (2000). A school wide approach to student discipline.

The School Administrator, 57(2), 20-24.

Hoyle, J., & Kutka, T. (2008). Maintaining America’s egalitarian edge in the 21st century:

Unifying K-12 and postsecondary education for the success of all students. Theory Into

Practice, 47(4), 353-362.

Huang, S., Clark, N., & Wedel, W. (2013). Teaching tips: The use of an iPad to promote

preschoolers’ alphabet recognition and letter sound correspondence. Practically Primary,

18(1), 24-26.

IBM SPSS (computer software). (2014). SPSS Statistical software. Retrieved from http://www-

01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/products/statistics/

Ignatia de Waard, I. (2014). Using BYOD, mobile social media, apps, and sensors for

meaningful mobile learning. In M. Ally & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Increasing

access through mobile learning (pp. 113-124). Vancouver, Canada: Commonwealth of

Learning and Athabasca University.

iNACOL (2011). The online learning definitions project. Retrieved from

http://www.inacol.org/resources/publications/inacol-reports/

iNACOL. (2013). K-12 online learning research database. International Association for K-12

Online Learning (iNACOL). Retrieved from http://www.k12onlineresearch.org/

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). Online research data base.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), National Standard for

Teachers (NETS-T, 2008). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/nets

 115

Jenkins, P. (2012). Teacher and principal experiences of effective professional development

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Dissertation and Theses Database. (AAT

3502620)

Jensen, R. (2013, Sept/Oct). The new renaissance is in our hands. The Futurist. Retrieved from

http://www.wfs.org

Johnson, D. (2012). The classroom teacher’s technology survival guide. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Jones, V., Dohrn, E., & Dunn, C. (2004). Creating effective programs for students with

emotional and behavior disorders: Interdisciplinary approaches for adding meaning and

hope to behavior change interventions. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Karl, L. (2011). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of technology proficiencies and motivation to

integrate technology into school curriculi (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT

Open Dissertation and Theses Database. (AAT 3489761)

Keane, J. (2012). Implementation of a one-to-one iPod touch program in a middle school.

Journal of Interactive Learning, 11(1), 1-18.

Kharbach, M. (2013). Educational technology and Mobile Learning: A resource of educational

web tools and mobile apps for teachers and educators [Online forum comment].

Retrieved from http://www.educatorstechnology.com/

Kidder, R. (2009). How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical

living. New York, NY: Harper.

Kirtman, L. (2013). Leadership and teams: The missing piece of the education reform puzzle.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

 116

Kopra, K. (2012). What is a guaranteed and viable curriculum? Retrieved from

http://sites.google.com/a/creesb.qc.ca/school-improvement/gvc/

Kumar, N.P. (2014). Information and communication technology (ICT) in education.

International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, 2(1), 176-181. Retrieved from

Retrieved from http://www.ijrat.org

Laszlo, A., Feher, A., Juhasz, A., Nyari, T., Boda, K., Csicsman, J., & Bari, F. (2013, May).

Effect size calculation in power estimation for the chi-square test of preliminary data in

different studies. Statistics Research Letters (SRL), 2(2), 31-43.

Lederman, J. (2014, February). Obama secures $750M in pledges to get kids online. Education

Week. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/02/04/673412usobamaeducation

Lefton, R. (2012). Digital transformation advances, although slowly. Educational Marketer,

43(13), 1-3.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ludbrook, J. (2011). Is there still a place for Pearson’s chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test in

surgical research? JNZ Journal of Surgery, 81(12), 923-926.

Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research,

35(6), 382-385.

MacFarland, T.W. (2014). Oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA). In T.W. MacFarland (Ed.),

Introduction to Data Analysis and Graphical Presentation in Biostatistics with R,

SpringerBriefs in Statistics (pp. 73-97). New York, NY: Springer International.

 117

Malone, G. (2012). Washington State superintendents and K-12 online learning: Leadership

perceptions, challenges & opportunities (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT

Open Dissertation and Theses Database. (AAT 3517416)

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:

ASCD.

Marzano, R.J., & Brown, J.L. (2009). A handbook for the art and science of teaching. Alexandra,

VA: ASCD.

McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7-22.

McHugh, M. (2011). Multiple comparison analysis testing in ANOVA. Biochemia Medica,

21(3), 203-209.

McHugh, M. (2013). The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23(2), 143-149.

McKenna, C. (2012). There’s an app for that: How two elementary classrooms used iPads to

enhance student learning and achievement. Education, 2(5), 336-242.

McLester, S. (2012, June). One tablet per child? District Administration, 48(6), 58-67.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010, September). Evaluation of

evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online

learning studies. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www2ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education, a qualitative approach. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.
 118

Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, R.K., & Moorefield-Lang, H., & Meier, C. (2012, Nov/Dec). Rethinking reference and

instruction with tablets. Library Technology Reports, 11/12, 5-10.

Mireles, L. (2012). Schools of the future in Hawaii: Networked learning communities and

teaching innovation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Open Dissertations

and Theses database. (AAT 3499352)

Mishne, J. (2012). An investigation of the relationships between technology use and teacher’

self-efficacy, knowledge and experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT

Open Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3503821)

Murphy, P., & Regenstein, E. (2012). Putting a price tag on common core: How much will smart

implementation cost? Fordham Institute, 1-62.

Nagel, D. (2009, July). Meta-analysis: Is blended learning most effective? Technological

Horizons in Education Journal. Retrieved from

http://thejournal.com/articles/2009/07/01/meta-analysis-is-blended-learning-most-

effective.aspx

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www.nces.ed.gov

Nichols, P., & Ferrara, S. (2014). The learning diamond: A systemic perspective on student

learning (Research report). New York: Pearson.

No Child Left Behind. (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § Stat. 1425 (2002).
 119

Pacansky-Brock, M. (2013). Best practices with emerging technologies. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Paganelli, A.L. (2010). Teachers’ clinical experiences and attitudes toward technology inclusion

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Open Dissertations and Theses database.

(AAT 3439832)

Parsons, D. (2014). The future of mobile learning and implications for education and training. In

M. Ally & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Increasing access through mobile learning (pp. 217-229).

Vancouver, Canada: Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2014a). Framework for 21st century learning for teachers.

Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2014b). Framework for 21st century learning for students.

Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/1.__p21_framework_2-pager.pdf

Pass, R. (2008). Attempting to improve teaching and learning through technology: An

examination of a professional development initiative in a rural junior high school

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Open Dissertations and Theses database.

(AAT 3315889)

Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). Academic emotions and student engagement. In

Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student

engagement (pp. 259-282). New York, NY: Springer.

Pew Research Center (2013). Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from

http://pewinternet.org/Reports 2013

Pianta, R., Hamre, B., & Allen, J. (2013). Teacher-student relationships and engagement:

conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In

 120

Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student

engagement (pp. 365-386). New York, NY: Springer.

Pickett, S. (2012). Literacy instruction enriched through technology grant proposal (Master’s

thesis). Retrieved from http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2012/2012picketts.pdf

Pink, D. (2009). Drive. New York, NY: Riverhead Book.

Pinto, M.B., & Anderson, W. (2012). A little knowledge goes a long way: Student expectation

and satisfaction with hybrid learning. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies 9, 65-76.

Retrieved from http://ebscohost.com

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (1999). The knowing-doing gap. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Press.

Plotkin, H., & Chien, C. (2014). Expanding opportunity through open educational resources.

Office of Science and Technology Policy, White House. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/03/14/expanding-opportunity-through-open-

educational-resources

Pointek, J. (2013a). Guide to blended learning for elementary mathematics. A District

Administration Web Seminar Digest, http://districtadministration.com/ws021413

Pointek, J. (2013b). Introduction to blended learning for elementary schools: Personalizing math

instruction in the K-5 classroom [White paper]. Retrieved from

http://www.dreambox.com/white-papers/introduction-to-blended-learning-for-

elementary-schools

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's

being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 29(5),

489-497. doi:10.1002/nur.20147
 121

Prochaska, J. O., & Prochaska, J. M. (1999). Why don’t continents move? Why don’t people

change? Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 9(1), 83–102.

Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013, February). How teachers are using

technology at home and in their classrooms. Retrieved from

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teachers-and-technology/Methodology.aspx

Qualtrics. (2014). Research suite. Retrieved from http://qualtrics.com/research-suite/#enterprise

Quillen, I. (2010). Gates foundation turns attention to education technology. Education Week,

30(8), 9-9.

Raftery, J., Grolnick, W., & Flamm, E. (2013). Families as facilitators of student engagement:

Toward a home-school partnership model. In Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 343-364). New York, NY:

Springer.

Reeve, J. (2013). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In

Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student

engagement (pp. 149-172). New York, NY: Springer.

Reeves, T., & Reeves, P. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide

Web. In B.H. Kahn (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 59-65). Englewood Cliffs: NJ,

Educational Technology.

Reiss, D. (2013, February). Textbooks to tablets. District Administration, 2, 60-63.

 122

Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. (2013). Jingle, jangle and conceptual haziness: Evolution and

future directions of the engagement construct. In Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie,

C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3-19). New York, NY:

Springer.

Richardson, W. (2010). No more one-size-fits all learning: The federal government finally gets

21st century learning right. District Administration, 46(7), 85-85.

Riddle, J. (2010). 21 things: Kinder, gentler tips for effective technology integration infusion.

MultiMedia & Internet@school, 17(2), 25-27.

Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and one-to-one laptop

environment in teaching and learning: Lessons from the Time to Know program. Journal

of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 225-241.

Rosenzweig, G. (2013). My iPad (5th ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Que.

Roseth, C., Akcaoglu, M., & Zellner. (2013, May/June). Blending synchronous face-to-face and

computer-supported learning in a hybrid doctoral seminar. TechTrends. 57(3). Retrieved

from http://ebscohost.com

Roth, M. (2012). Is blended learning elementary? Scholastic Administrator, 121(6), 30-31.

Retrieved from http://ebscohost.com

Ruiling, L., & Overbaugh, R. (2009). School environment and technology implementation in

K-12 classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 89-106.

Scanlon, E. (2014). Mobile learning: Location, collaboration and scaffolding inquiry. In M. Ally

& A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Increasing access through mobile learning (pp. 85-95).

Vancouver, Canada: Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University

 123

Schachter, R. (2012). Brave new world of teacher evaluation, new state laws and the federal

Race to the Top program are carving big changes. Retrieved from

http://www.districtadministration.com/article/brave-new-world

Sheninger, E. (2014). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in

teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student learning.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Schunk, D., & Mullen, C. (2013). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In Christenson, S.,

Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219-

235). New York, NY: Springer.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Serim, F. (2012). Digital learning: Strengthening and assessing 21st century skills. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shapiro, E.M. (1987). Behavioral assessment in school psychology. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Shaw, M. (2010). Teachers’ learning of technology: Key factors and processes (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Open Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT

3411483)

Simon, F., Nemeth, K., & McManis, D. (2013). Technology in ECE classrooms: Results of a

new survey and implications in the field. Exchange, 9(213), 68-75. Retrieved from

http://www.ChildCareExchange.com
 124

Skinner, E., & Pitzer, J. (2013). Developing dynamics of student engagement, coping and

everyday resilience. In Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of

research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). New York, NY: Springer.

Sprague, J., & Golly, A. (2005). Best behavior: Building positive behavior support in schools.

Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guilford.

Stein, J., & Graham, C. (2014). Essentials for blended learning: A standards-based guide. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Stover, K. (2012). Digital collaborative literacy, critical literacy, and writing for social justice:

A case study of meaningful learning in a first grade classroom (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from PQDT Open Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3510232)

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of

Medicine, 2, 53-55. doi:10.5116/jime.4dfb.8dfd

Tanner, D. (2012). Using statistics to make educational decisions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tao, J., Fore, C., & Forbes, W. (2011). Seven best face-to-face teaching practices in a blended

learning environment. Journal of Applied Learning Technology. 1(3). Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com

Tellagami Labs, Inc. (2014). Tellagami application for Apple products. Retrieved from

https://tellagami.com/

Thiele, H. (2013). Blended and flipped learning. Technology & Learning, 34(2), 44-44.

Retrieved from http://www.techlearning.com

 125

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Likert scaling Retrieved

from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/scallik.php

Twining, P., Raffaghelli, J., Albion, P., & Knezek, D. (2013). Moving education into the digital

age: the contribution of teachers’ professional development. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 29(5), 426-437. Retrieved from doi:10.1111/jcal.12031

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education-Learning powered by

technology: National Education Technology Plan 2010. Washington, DC: Office of

Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov

U.S. Federal Communications Commission, E-Rate Federal Program (1997). Electronic

Education Report 19(2). Retrieved from EBSCO Industries database (Accession No.

70585181)

U.S. White House, Office of the Press Secretary (2014). Answering the President’s call to enrich

American education through ConnectED. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/04/fact-sheet-opportunity-all-

answering-president-s-call-enrich-american-ed

U.S. White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President.

(2014). The FY 2015 Science and technology R & D Budget. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Relea

se.pdf

Velez, A. (2012). Preparing students for the future – 21st century skills (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from PQDT Open Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3514336)
 126

Ventura, F. (2011). Hands-on math, tools for active teaching and learning, base ten block

application for iPads.

Vialatte, F., & Cichocki, A. (2008). Split-test Bonferroni correction for QEEG statistical maps.

Biological Cybernetics, 98(4), 295-303.

Voelkl, K. (2013). School identification. In Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie (Eds.),

Handbook of research on student engagement (193-218). New York, NY: Springer.

Wagner, P., & Simpson, D. (2009). Ethical decision making in school administration:

Leadership as a moral architecture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2013a). Education Reform

Bill E2SSB 6696 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project, Teaching Framework, and

Common Core State Standards requirements. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us

Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (2013b). Educational

technology, crosswalk the Common Core and educational technology standards.

Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/EdTech/Standards/edtechcoresubjects/CCSS.aspx

Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (2013c). Report card data

and Common Core State Standards adoption. Retrieved from

http://www.k12.wa.us/corestandards/

Washington State Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project. (2013d). Teacher Principal Evaluation

Project (TPEP). Retrieved from http://tpep-wa.org

Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2012). Keeping pace with K-12

online and blended learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Retrieved from

http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPace2012.pdf
 127

Werth, E., Werth, L., & Kellerer, E. (2013, October). Transforming K-12 rural education

through blended learning: Barriers and practices. Retrieved

from http://www.inacol.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/iNACOL-Transforming-K-

12-Rural-Education-through-Blended-Learning.pdf

Wolpert-Gawron, H. (2011). Blended learning: Combining face-to-face and online education.

Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/blended-online-learning-heather-wolpert-

gawron

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of

globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

 128

Appendix A

National Institute for Health Certification

Certificate of Completion
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of
Extramural Research certifies that Cindy Prouty
successfully completed the NIH Web-based training
course “Protecting Human Research Participants”.

Date of Completion: 03/18/2013

Certification Number: 1145235

 129

Appendix B

Washington District Research Approval

 130

Appendix C

Pew Internet Research Survey Permission

 131

Appendix D

ISTE Permission

The Permissions Company, Inc.

47 Seneca Road
P. O. Box 604
Mount Pocono, PA 18344
570.839.7477 (vox) 570.839.7448 (fax) e-mail: [email protected]

December 11, 2013

Dear Ms Prouty:
Thank you for your email of today, for permission to use the graphic regarding the technology
standard for teachers in your doctoral dissertation for Northwest Nazarene University.
This letter will grant you permission to use the material as requested in your dissertation and in
all copies to meet university requirements, including University Microfilms edition. You must
credit our work as the source of the material, and you must re-apply if your dissertation is later
published. The source line you have indicated in your email is fine, but please add “Used by
permission” to the end to indicate our approval of the use.

In lieu of a fee, please have a copy of your dissertation sent to:

Carolyn Sykora
ISTE®
180 West 8th Ave, Suite 300
Eugene, OR 97401-2916

Many thanks for your interest in ISTE®. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.

Sincerely,
Frederick T. Courtright, President
The Permissions Company, Inc.
Rights Agency for the International Society for Technology in Education
 132

Appendix E

Danielson Permission

From: Thomas Emerick

Sent: Tuesday, January 21 , 2014 5 : 35 PM
To: Cindy Prouty

Dear Cindy,

You may reference the Framework in your dissertation, provided that you do not modify any of
the language.

Best of luck in your studies.

Kind Regards,
Thomas

The information contained in this ELECTRONIC MAIL transmission is confidential. It may also be
privileged work product or proprietary information. This information is intended for the exclusive use of
the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure,
dissemination, distribution [other than to the addressee(s)], copying or taking of any action because of
this information is strictly prohibited.
 133

Appendix F

Christensen Permission

12/13/2013
Re: Permission to use graphics

Dear Cindy,

We are delighted to grant permission for you to use graphics and / or text related to blended
learning found in blog posts and publications on the Christensen Institute website. In return we
require that you cite Clayton Christensen Institute and link to the page where each graphic and /
or text entry used is currently located.

With best wishes for your continued success,

Cathleen Calice
Executive Assistant to Michael Horn
Clayton Christensen Institute
2929 Campus Drive, Suite 410
San Mateo, CA 94403-2537
[email protected]
650-887-0788, ext. 0
 134

Appendix G

Collins Permission

2/3/2014

Hi Cindy,

Thank you for contacting us for information about using Jim Collins’ copyrighted/trademarked
material in your dissertation. Jim always finds it gratifying when students take an interest in
exploring his ideas.

Listed below are the requirements we have for dissertations:

1. Jim Collins and Good to Great and the Social Sectors (the Monograph) should be credited
in the text surrounding any quotations.
2. The credit line for the Monograph must appear on the same page where
quotations/figures/graphics appear.
3. Please use direct quotes. Jim Collins does not allow his words to be edited so that the
meaning of his words is not lost in the editing. Figures need to be derived from the source
and recreated to match the original.
4. Total amount of quoted material should not exceed 2-3 paragraphs or 2 graphs/figures.
5. Appropriate credit is: Jim Collins, Good to Great, 2001: HarperCollins Publishers, New
York, NY. Copyright © 2001 by Jim Collins. Jim Collins, Good to Great and the Social
Sectors, 2005. Jim Collins, Boulder, CO. Copyright © 2005 by Jim Collins.
6. Should you decide in the future to publish your dissertation findings in a professional or
trade book, please note that the Good to Great phrase and Jim Collins’ name cannot be
used in the title or marketing of the publication.
7. Since some PhD students, who are also consultants, have asked for further parameters on
using Jim’s copyrighted/trademarked material in other areas of their work, we are
sending along our general permissions guidelines below.
 135

Appendix G (continued)

Collins Permission

General Guidelines for Third Party Use of Jim Collin’s Material

1. Phrases or titles such as “Good to Great” “Hedgehog Concept” “Level 5 Leadership”

“Great by Choice” or any other phrases in which Jim Collins has intellectual property or
trademark rights or copyright may not be used in the name or title, of a program,
workshop, training, consulting service or any other product or service with which Jim
Collins is not affiliated.
2. Phrases or titles such as “Good to Great” “Hedgehog Concept” “Level 5 Leadership”
“Great by Choice” or any other phrases in which Jim Collins has intellectual property or
trademark rights or copyright may not be used or for the purposes of marketing a
program, workshop, training, consulting service or any other product or service with
which Jim Collins is not affiliated. For example, one may not advertise that they are
holding a Good to Great workshop or presentation.
3. Jim Collins’ name or likeness cannot be used for the purposes of marketing a program,
workshop, consulting service or any other product or service with which Jim Collins is
not affiliated.
4. Material must not be used in any way that implies an endorsement, or involvement, of the
product or service by Jim Collins.
5. The material on Jim Collins’ website (www.jimcollins.com) is for personal and intra-
company use only, as stated in the Terms of Use posted on the website. Third parties are
welcome to direct their clients to the website, however, website materials, such as the
Diagnostic Tool and the Discussion Guide, must be acquired directly by the organization
so that they can become acquainted with the website and its contents.
6. When granted, permission requires that appropriate attribution, source information, and
credit shall be given to Jim Collins, Good to Great, Great by Choice, Good to Great and
the Social Sectors, Built to Last, How the Mighty Fall and/or the website
(www.jimcollins.com). Credit must be given in the text directly above the use of Jim
Collins’ material.
 136

Appendix G (continued)

Collins Permission

o In the case of handouts, this information is expected to appear on each page so

that users of pages that have become separated may easily identify the original
source. When materials are used as part of a PowerPoint (or similar) presentation,
the source/attribution/credit information should appear on the slide that contains
Jim Collins’s material.
o When audio/video clips from Jim Collins’ website are played for an audience, a
verbal introduction with source/attribution/credit information should precede the
playing of the clip.

7. Articles and text must be reprinted verbatim and contiguous. In other words, no editing.
8. Audio/video clips may be played for an audience, but cannot be downloaded and
distributed to others. Audio/video clips must be used in their entirety – verbatim and
contiguous. In other words, no editing. In addition, audio clips must be played for the
audience; they may not be transcribed to be read by the presenter; nor may a transcription
be printed in text format.
9. No electronic versions of Jim Collins material may be made or distributed without
express written permission.
10. Website audio and video clips must be viewed or presented directly from the
website. Audio and video clips may not be downloaded onto other servers, or placed into
other electronic or online programs, or distributed in any way other than through a link to
www.jimcollins.com.

We hope these requirements and guidelines will answer your questions about the use of Jim
Collins’ material in your dissertation and we wish you all the best with your graduate studies.

My best regards,

Torrey

Torrey Udall
Assistant to Strategic Council
The Good to Great Project LLC
Office of Jim Collins
[email protected]
Phone: 303.209.3740
Fax: 303.448.9087
www.jimcollins.com
 137

Appendix H

Ambient Insight Permission

From: Cindy Prouty

Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 3:37 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Ref #1963] Ambient Insight Support

Hi Cindy. Thanks for your interest in our research. You are welcome to use a graphic from that
report. You can also review recent 2011-2016 Overviews and regional Abstracts here:

http://www.ambientinsight.com/Reports/eLearning.aspx

Jim Halliday,
Ambient Insight Communications
 138

Appendix I

NASP Permissions

Student Engagement Graphic

Re: Permission to use graphics

Hi Cindy,

This graphic is not in the chapter you have cited. However, there is a figure in chapter 68 that
deals with the same material. If you want to use the graphic, you will need to go to Elsevier for
permission as they clearly own the figures first published in The Journal of School Psychology
(2006).

You can certainly cite the authors and Chapter 68 of Best Practices in School Psychology V 2008
for the content and you will not need written permission for this. However, NASP cannot give
you permission to use either the graphics (the one you sent or the one on page 1103), as we do
not own them.

I hope this helps.

Denise
Denise F. Ferrenz, CPA
Director of Publications
NASP
4340 East West Hwy. #402
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301) 347-1656- Direct
(301) 657-0275- Fax
 139

Appendix J

Elsevier Permissions
This is a License Agreement between Cindy Prouty ("You") and Elsevier ("Elsevier")
provided by Copyright Clearance Center ("CCC"). The license consists of your order
details, the terms and conditions provided by Elsevier, and the payment terms and
conditions.

All payments must be made in full to CCC. For payment instructions, please see information
listed at the bottom of this form.

Supplier Elsevier Limited

The Boulevard,Langford Lane
Kidlington,Oxford,OX5 1GB,UK
Registered Company Number 1982084
Customer name Cindy Prouty
License number 3326800022791
License date Feb 12, 2014
Licensed content publisher Elsevier
Licensed content publication Journal of School Psychology
Licensed content title Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement:
Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument
Licensed content author James J. Appleton,Sandra L. Christenson,Dongjin
Kim,Amy L. Reschly
Licensed content date October 2006
Licensed content volume number 44
Licensed content issue number 5
Number of pages 19
Start Page 427
End Page 445
Type of Use reuse in a thesis/dissertation
Portion full article
Format both print and electronic
Title of your thesis/dissertation STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: BEST PRACTICES IN
TEACHING IN A K-5 BLENDED LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT
Expected completion date May 2014
 140

Appendix J (continued)

Elsevier Permissions

INTRODUCTION
1. The publisher for this copyrighted material is Elsevier. By clicking "accept" in
connection with completing this licensing transaction, you agree that the following terms
and conditions apply to this transaction (along with the Billing and Payment terms and
conditions established by Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. ("CCC"), at the time that you
opened your Rightslink account and that are available at any time
at http://myaccount.copyright.com).

Licensing material from an Elsevier book: A hyper-text link must be included to the
Elsevier homepage at http://www.elsevier.com . All content posted to the web site must
maintain the copyright information line on the bottom of each image.

Posting licensed content on Electronic reserve: In addition to the above the following
clauses are applicable: The web site must be password-protected and made available only
to bona fide students registered on a relevant course. This permission is granted for 1 year
only. You may obtain a new license for future website posting.

For journal authors: the following clauses are applicable in addition to the above:
Permission granted is limited to the author accepted manuscript version* of your paper.

*Accepted Author Manuscript (AAM) Definition: An accepted author manuscript

(AAM) is the author’s version of the manuscript of an article that has been accepted for
publication and which may include any author-incorporated changes suggested through the
processes of submission processing, peer review, and editor-author communications.
AAMs do not include other publisher value-added contributions such as copy-editing,
formatting, technical enhancements and (if relevant) pagination.
 141

Appendix K

Partnership for 21st Century Skills Permission

Thank you Cindy!

Please feel free to use the Framework for 21st Century Learning - all our materials and educator
resources are free for educational purposes. Thank you for citing Partnership for 21st Century
Skills and linking to our website - www.P21.org.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance!

All the best,

Tatyana

Tatyana Warrick
Communications Manager
Partnership for 21st Century Skills
1 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: (202) 312-6430
Please note my new email: [email protected]
Twitter: @P21CentSkills
www.P21.org

Need a great speaker? Check out the P21 Speakers Bureau!

 142

Appendix L

Qualitative Informed Consent

A. Purpose and Background

Cynthia Prouty, Ed.S., in the Department of Graduate Education at Northwest Nazarene
University is conducting a research study related to tablet computing and blended learning in
elementary classrooms. We appreciate your involvement in helping us to determine the
perceptions of teachers in understanding teacher professional development needs and the impact
of blended learning in classrooms.
You are being asked to participate in this study because you are a healthy volunteer, over the age
of 18.
B. Procedures
If you agree to participate in the study, the following will occur:
1. You will be asked to sign an Informed Consent Form, volunteering to participate in the
study.
2. You will be asked to provide a set of demographic data.
3. You will be asked to complete two interviews related to your experiences with tablet
computing and blended learning in the classroom. The interviews will each take
approximately 40 minutes.
4. You will be asked to reply to an email at the conclusion of the study asking you to
confirm the accuracy of the data gathered during the interview.

C. Risks/Discomforts
Some of the questions could make you uncomfortable, but you are free to decline to answer any
questions you do not wish to answer or to stop participation at any time.
The researcher will make every effort to protect your confidentiality. However, if you are
uncomfortable answering any of these questions, you may leave them blank.
Confidentiality: Participation in research may involve a loss of privacy; however, your records
will be handled as confidentially as possible. No individual identities will be used in any reports
or publications that may result from this study. All data from notes and disks will be kept in a
locked file cabinet in the researcher’s home and the key to the cabinet will be kept in a separate
location. In compliance with the Federalwide Assurance Code, data from this study will be kept
for three years, after which all data from the study will be destroyed (945 CFR 46.117).
 143

Appendix L

Qualitative Informed Consent (continued)

D. Benefits
The information you provide may help educators to learn more about best practices in blended
learning and develop professional development steps for teachers to become more proficient in
enhancing tablet computing in their classroom.

E. Payments
A $5.00 coffee card will be provided to participants who complete the survey.
F. Questions
If you have questions or concerns about participation in this study, you should talk first with the
investigator. Cynthia Prouty can be contacted via email [email protected] or
[email protected] or via phone (360) 722-9336. If for some reason you do not wish to
do this, you may contact Dr. Loredana Werth, (208) 467-8062, Program Administrator at
Northwest Nazarene University.
Should you feel distressed due to participation in this study, you should contact your health care
provider.

G. Consent
You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

Participation in research is voluntary. You are free to decline to be in this study, or to

withdraw from participation at any point. This research study has been approved by the
Northwest Nazarene University Human Research Review Committee in June 2013, approval
#3062013.

I give my consent to participate in this study:

_____________________________________________________ __________________
Signature of Study Participant Date

I give my consent for the interview to be audio taped in this study:

_____________________________________________________ __________________
Signature of Study Participant Date
 144

Appendix L

Qualitative Informed Consent (continued)

I give my consent for direct quotes to be used in this study. No personal identifying
information will be used in the report from this study:

_____________________________________________________ __________________
Signature of Study Participant Date

_____________________________________________________ __________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

THE NORTHWEST NAZARENE UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH REVIEW

COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT FOR THE PROTECTION OF
HUMAN PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH
 145

Appendix M

Verbatim Telephone Script

Hello, my name is Cindy Prouty and I am a doctoral student at Northwest Nazarene University.
Do you remember recently filling out a survey online about your work with blended learning?
On that survey, you indicated that you would be willing to participate in an interview. The
interview will require that we meet twice for approximately 40 minutes each time.

Is this a good time to visit about setting up a time for the interview?

If yes, proceed.

If no, is there a time that would be better to call again? Thank you for your time. I will call back
at our appointed time.

Thank you for agreeing to be a part of this study. Before I can conduct the interview I will need
for you to sign the Informed Consent Form.

I will email you an Informed Consent Form for your signature. After you have signed the form
you can scan the form and email it to me at [email protected], or you can mail it to me at 3832
252nd St NE, Arlington, WA 98223.

After I have received the Informed Consent Form, I will call you back to set up a time for our
interview.

Do you have any questions for me?

Thank you so much for your willingness to be a part of this study. I will talk to you soon. Thanks
again.
 146

Appendix N

Pre-survey Questions

Dear Teacher:
Hello! My name is Cindy Prouty and I am currently a doctoral student at Northwest Nazarene
University in Nampa, Idaho. I am working on my dissertation and am hoping you will participate
in this study.

The purpose of this research is to understand how the use of tablets impact elementary students
and the different methods teachers are using tablets in their instruction. All the data received will
be anonymous. By completing this pre-survey you are providing your consent to use the
information for this study. Results will be reported in the aggregate and no responses will be
attributed to any individual. By continuing, you are providing consent to take part in this study.
Please feel free to contact me at any time with questions you may have, [email protected]. This
is a voluntary survey, if you do not feel comfortable with any of the items, you may leave them
blank. You may stop the pre-survey at any time if you have any concerns.

1. Are you familiar with the term blended

learning? Yes No
If yes, what is your definition?

2. Are you acquainted with blended learning

terminology and models? Yes No
If yes, please list any terminology and models you
typically associate with blended learning.
 147

Appendix O

Quantitative/Qualitative Online Teacher Survey

Hello! My name is Cindy Prouty and I am currently a doctoral student at Northwest Nazarene
University in Nampa, Idaho. I am working on my dissertation and am hoping you will participate
in this study.

The purpose of this research is to understand how the use of tablets is impacting elementary
students and the different methods teachers are using touch tablets in their instruction. All the
data received will be anonymous. By completing this survey you are providing your consent to
use the information for this study. Results will be reported in the aggregate and no responses will
be attributed to any individual. Some questions will have a textbox in which you can type your
answer. Once you submit your survey, you will not be able to log back in. The survey should
take about 15 minutes to complete. By continuing to the next page, you are providing consent to
take part in this study.

Please feel free to contact me at any time with questions you may have. You may email me at
[email protected] or (360) 722-9336.

This is a voluntary survey, if you do not feel comfortable with any of the items, you may leave
them blank. You may stop the survey at any time if you have any concerns.
Please select from the drop-down menu below
1. What is your age group? 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70+
2. How many years have you been teaching? <2 yrs, 3-5 yrs, 6-10 yrs, 11-15 yrs, 16 yrs or
more
3. Would you describe the students you teach as: mostly upper or upper middle income,
mostly middle income, mostly lower middle income, mostly low income?
4. With the new teacher evaluation system being implemented, a rubric will be utilized:
1 = not proficient, 2 = needs improvement, 3 = meets standard, and 4 = exceeds standard.
How would you rate yourself in terms of tablet technology usage in the classroom? (1-4)
5. When it comes to using digital technology (such as Internet, tablets, laptops, etc.) do you
usually know more than your students? (Always, sometimes, we know about the same,
no, my students seem to know more than I do about tablets and other devices).
6. What is the desired ratio of tablets in your classroom? (one tablet per class, one tablet per
small group, 1 tablet for every two students, or 1-to-1 tablets).
 148

Appendix O

Quantitative/Qualitative Online Teacher Survey (continued)

Likert Questions 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
Do you think the use of tablets is narrowing the
gap between the most and least academically
successful students?
Do you have your students use the computer
lab?
Do you have your students use tablets from a
mobile cart?
Do your students use tablets from the mobile
cart more than once per month?
Do your students use the tablet mobile cart
more than once per week?
Do your students appear to be more engaged in
the instruction when utilizing a tablet than with
traditional methods/materials?
Do you utilize your classroom tablets on a
monthly basis?
Do you utilize your classroom tablets on
weekly basis?
Do you utilize your classroom tablets on daily
basis?
Do you find that discipline or behavioral
challenges decrease when tablets are being
utilized?
Have you observed better attendance when
students know in advance they will be working
with the tablets?
Do your students have assignments that require
online access as a part of their homework?
Are you a part of a networking system (formal
or informal) that shares sites, web tools, apps or
other learning tools?
 149

Appendix O

Quantitative/Qualitative Online Teacher Survey (continued)

Likert Questions 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
Would you say the impact of the Internet on
students’ research habits has been mostly
positive?
How likely are you to seek professional
development opportunities involving digital
technologies (laptop, web tools, apps, tablets)
How likely are you to seek professional
development opportunities specifically for
tablet usage?
How interested are you in increasing your
digital technology skills?

Please answer the following questions:

1. What methods (face-to-face, hands-on training, webinars, video training modules, etc) of
professional development would be most helpful to you?
2. What comments or suggestions do you have to improve the facilitation of technology in
your district?
3. What is most challenging about incorporating digital technologies and digital learning
into your classroom pedagogy?
4. Comments/Feedback
I am seeking individuals who are interested and willing to participate in an interview regarding
your experiences integrating technology into the classroom. If you are interested, please provide
your name and contact information in the space provided. The interviews will require
approximately 40 minutes of your time.

Name_________________________
Email Address__________________
Phone_________________________

Thank you for taking your time to advance digital technology research in classrooms. Please
contact me at [email protected] if you have any questions.
 150

Appendix P

Qualitative Interview Questions #1

Interview #1

The term blended learning in the context of this K-5 study means utilizing different technology
devices as a means to enhance teaching (Christensen, Horn, & Staker, 2013; Horn & Staker,
2012; Pointek, 2013b).

1. Tell me about your background and professional development related to integrating

blended learning in the classroom?

2. In your own words, describe effective tablet technology integration tools and strategies

you employ with your class?

3. How do you incorporate technology into your classroom?

4. How are you using tablets in your classroom?

5. Do you find tablet usage beneficial with your students? If yes, how so?

6. What type of support do you need or would be helpful in order to effectively teach in a

blended learning technology rich classroom?

7. Do you think incorporating technology in your classroom has improved the motivation of

your students? If yes, how so?

8. What types of changes have you seen in attendance or disciplinary referrals in the

blended learning technology rich classroom?

9. What strategies have you tried to engage your students when you are teaching in the

blended learning environment?

10. How has blended learning changed how you teach and how has blended learning changed

how you see yourself as a teacher?

 151

Appendix Q

Qualitative Interview Questions #2

Interview #2
1. In what ways do you team with others to find effective blended learning tools and

strategies?

2. What do you see as challenges to effective blended learning implementation?

What professional development needs do you have or opportunities would you like to see

in terms of blended learning in your:

a) Building?

b) District?

3. With the new teacher evaluation system being implemented, are your teaching practices

changing? How?

4. Charlotte Danielson’s instructional framework has been adopted by your school district.

In what way do you include that framework in your teaching practice?

5. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have been adopted and are being implemented in

the 2013-2014 school year. In regards to blended learning, are your teaching practices

changing? How?

6. Which methods of technology implementation have you tried and have been the most

successful in your classroom?

7. Do you have further information you would like to share about your teaching practices or

successful technology implementation at the elementary-school level?

 152

Appendix R

Classroom Observation On-Task Data Collection

Teacher Code ___________________ Grade Level _____________________

Date of Observation _______________ Number of Students Present ________

Instructional Topic________________ Tablet Method___________________

Start/Stop time 5 Minute Intervals On-Task Not On-Task)

Notes to indicate any irregularities/drills/unexpected disruption:

 153

Appendix S

Debrief Statement for Qualitative Interviews

Thank you for participating in this study. The goal of this study is to determine teacher
perceptions of blended learning practices and student engagement. I hope that this study can help
other schools define best practices for blended learning and determine professional development
strategies for teachers.

After I have had a chance to analyze the data, I will email you the results and ask for feedback.
The purpose of this communication is to ensure that I have captured our discussions accurately
and portrayed your thoughts properly.

If you have any questions or concerns, Cindy Prouty can be contacted by phone (360) 722-9336;
or email at [email protected].

Thank you for your participation.

 154

Appendix T

Verbatim Instructions for Interviews

Hi _______

Thank you for participating in this study, I truly appreciate it.

Semi-Structured, Audio-Recorded Interviews

Two semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews will be conducted with each participant. The
interviews will be completed at a public location mutually decided by the participant and
investigator. Each interview will take approximately 40 minutes.

This process is completely voluntary and you can select to leave the study at any time. If you feel
uncomfortable with any question you can select not to answer that question.

Do you have any questions for me?

Thank you for participating.

 155

Appendix U

Class Observations Announcement to Parents

Dear Elementary School Parents –

My name is Cynthia Prouty, doctoral student in the Department of Graduate Education at

Northwest Nazarene University.

As a part of my research on blended learning and tablet technology, I will be observing in

approximately 10 classrooms in October. There will be no student interaction, pictures or video
taken of any children or classroom. Observations will only occur during the regular school day
with a district staff member leading the class. These observations are related to helping the
elementary school and teachers understand how often students are engaged in the classroom with
some of the new iPad technology that has become available.
Do not hesitate to contact me with questions. Thank you.

Cindy Prouty
Doctoral Student
Northwest Nazarene University
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: (360) 722-9336
 156

Appendix V

Member CheckingEmail

Dear Teacher,

Thank you for your participation in the study entitled Student Engagement: Best Practices in a
K-5 Blended Learning Environment. Themes that resulted from the presurvey, online survey,
interviews, and classroom observational data in your building is summarized below. Please let
me know if these accurately represent our collaboration. If you have any suggestions,
modifications, or questions, please contact me.

The purpose of this study was to explore student engagement and look at best practices in a
blended learning classroom. The research questions in this study were :
1. What tablet methodology supports best practices in a K-5 blended learning environment?
2. How does tablet use impact student engagement?
3. With an increase in the use of tablets in classrooms, what are teacher perceptions of
professional development and needs?

All full-time certificated staff participated in both the presurvey and the electronic survey.
Additionally, some participants volunteered for me to observe in their classroom, and others
volunteered for the interviews.

In the presurvey, 90% of staff were unfamiliar with blended learning, and 100% of teachers were
not familiar with terminiology or models associated with blended learning. The classroom
observations yielded a significant difference in classrooms with either one tablet per student and
two students per tablet when compared to those classrooms with less than 10 tablets. In other
words, more students were observed to be on task in the classrooms with more tablets.

Online survey results indicated that the most preferred method of professional development was
hands-on training. Second was face-to-face, and thirdly, collaborative professional development.
The overarching theme for the qualitative portion of the survey, was the improvement of the
facilitation of technology. Sub themes were: professional development, district-level technology
supports, and resources.

The top ten frequency themes from the interview data included: incorporation of tablets into the
classroom, utilization of apps for content areas, technology use in the classroom, professional
development needs (tablets, technology), collaboration with peers/other teachers, differentiation
of instruction for students, engagement of students in the material, increase in student motivation
during tablet use, blended learning terminology, and integration of technology into instruction.
 157

If you would like further information, please email or contact me. I plan to present this
information to building staff in June, 2014. Thank you again for your participation in my
research!

Cynthia Prouty
Doctoral Student
Northwest Nazarene University

Email: [email protected]
Telephone: (360) 722-9336
HRRC Approval #3062013