Citation
Digital tools in schools

Material Information

Title:
Digital tools in schools ethnography of technology in town and rural elementary schools
Creator:
Hamilton, Boni ( author )
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file : ;

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Doctor of Philosophy)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Education and Human Development, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Education and Human Development
Committee Chair:
Kalir, Remi
Committee Co-Chair:
Nathenson-Mejia, Sally
Committee Members:
Ortanez, Marty
Harding, Jennifer

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Educational technology -- United States ( lcsh )
Rural schools -- United States ( lcsh )
Urban schools -- United States ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
In the growing corpus of education research about technology in schools, information about town and rural elementary schools is scarce. I conducted a one-year descriptive ethnographic study of the everyday use of digital tools by teachers and students in three classrooms in a Rocky Mountain state. School selection was based on ethnicity rates (~35% Hispanic and ~55% White) and Free and Reduced lunch eligibility percentage (~40%), which mirrored state averages, as well as national locale codes as Town (between 2,500 and 49,999 residents) and Rural (<2,500 people). The two Grade 4 teachers in the town school and one Grades 5/6 teacher in the rural school were implementing one-to-one device initiatives and had similar classroom set-ups of a teacher laptop, mounted projector, and document camera. Students used their devices daily, mostly for word processing. Findings indicated many students lacked access to digital devices and the internet at home, so they acquired most of their digital skills at school. Students lacked important digital skills, including information literacy and digital citizenship knowledge. One-to-one device initiatives provided instructional efficiency for teachers and students and the types of devices provided to students limited the opportunities for students to participate in open-ended, creative projects. Implications for professional development and curriculum alignment are discussed.
Thesis:
Thesis: (Ph.D.).--University of Colorado Denver
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Boni Hamilton.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Boni Hamilton. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
on10810 ( NOTIS )
1081043665 ( OCLC )
on1081043665

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

DIGITAL TOOLS IN SCHOOLS: ETHNOGRAPHY OF TECHNOLOGY IN TOWN AND RURAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS by BONI HAMILTON B.A., Bethel College 1973 M.S., University of Northern Colorado 2005 Ed.D ., University of Northern Colorado 2011 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Education and Human Development 2018

PAGE 2

ii 2018 BONI HAMILTON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PAGE 3

iii This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Boni Hamilton has been approved for Education and Human Development b y Remi Kalir, Chair Sally Nathenson Mejia, Advisor Marty Ortaez Jennifer Harding Date: May 12, 2018

PAGE 4

iv Hamilton, Boni ( Ph.D School of Education and Human Development ) D igital Tools in Schools: E thnograph y of Technology in Town and Rural Elementary Schools Dissertation directed by Associate Professor Sally Nathenson Mejia ABSTRACT In the growing corpus of education research about technology in schools, information about town and rural elementary schools is scarce. I conducted a one year descriptive ethnographic study of the everyday use of digital tools by teachers and students in t hree classrooms in a Rocky Mountain state. School selection was based on ethnicity rates (~35% Hispanic and ~55% White) and Free and Reduced lunch eligibility percentage (~40%), which mirrored state averages, as well as national locale codes as Town (betwe en 2,500 and 49,999 residents) and Rural (<2,500 people). The two Grade 4 teachers in the town school and one Grades 5/6 teacher in the rural school were implementing one to one device initiatives and had similar classroom set ups of a teacher laptop, moun ted projector, and document camera. Students used their devices daily, mostly for word processing. Findings indicated many students lacked access to digital devices and the internet at home, so they acquired most of their digital skills at school. Students lacked important digital skills, including information literacy and digital citizenship knowledge. One to one device initiatives provided instructional efficiency for teachers and students and the types of devices provided to students limited the opportun ities for students to participate in open ended, creative projects. Implications for professional development and curriculum alignment are discussed. Keywords : elementary, technology, digital, town, rural, ethnography The form and content of this abstrac t are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Sally Nathenson Mejia

PAGE 5

v ACKNOWLEDEGMENTS I celebrate my dedicated and collegial dissertation committee You have allowed me to benefit from your passion and exper tise and still retain the vision of my h eart So many of our discussions have truly been conv ersations among peers and I have grown as a scholar through your insights and tutoring. Sally, I cannot adequately express my gratitude for your offer to support me when I desperately needed support. Y our gentle prodding, quick turn around on chapters, reaffirming commentary, and availability kept me moving ahead You r warmth and interest in me as a whole person soothed even the most hectic times in my life. How could I have been so lucky Remi, I will always remember how your key question made the conceptual framework coalesce for me. Your knowledge of how teens use technology provided an excellent contrast for me as I looked at children in elementary schools. Marty, what a treat it was to continue to learn from you about the anthropological and ethnographic per spective. You r great ideas improved my work, not just in this dissertation but also in the ways I now think about research Jenni, I was so fortunate to have you accompany me on both doctoral journeys as a mentor, advisor, co researcher, co writer, and, best of all, friend. You inspire me The best part of working with this committee has been how much I LIKE all four of you! Doctoral students face much cognitive dissonance as they tackle new ideas and encounter unfamiliar worldviews (Loyd, Harding Dekam, & Hamilton, 2015a) (Ha! A self citation in a dedication!). For me, having an intellectual support group has been critical. With fellow doctoral students, I have wr estled with difficult ideas readings and I was stimulated by the relationships I built with my doctoral peers. To all of you, cheers!

PAGE 6

vi I especially appreciate the dear friends and family who supported me over the many years o f the journey. Stacy, no other doctoral student has meant as much to me as you do. I love working with you on writing projects, professional development, research projects, and all those teacher tasks. You always bring me interesting challenges and have fa ith I can meet them what a compliment! Thanks for being available for caregivin g so I could pursue this dream and write you another book. Nick, Jamie, and Amanda, my three children in adult bodies you keep me balanced. I enjoy your playfulness and joy and successes and enthusiasm. I love you. Trecie, watching you grow as a teacher as a result of our weekly dinner discussions has been so satisfying. I spin grand schemes and you adapt them to the realities of the classroom. You keep me grounded. How I treasure th e gift of your openness second journey and oh, how I love you for being that selfless! You toler ated my verbal processing when all you wanted was to sip your scotch and dream up another creative venture. You spent hours in emergency room s as my proxy while I was hundreds of miles away. You charted an alternate path when a highway closure stranded me on the other side of the mountain. You fought battles for me when I felt too fragile to stand on m y own. I could not have a better champion. And now maybe we can relax together. Stephanie Puello, your position gives you the potential to be a help or a hindrance to doctoral students. You have chosen to provide responsive and flexible assistance. You are a blessing for which I am so grateful! This dissertation project Protocol 16 1925, was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Rev iew Board

PAGE 7

vii T ABLE OF C ONTENTS CHAPTER I. SETTING CONTEXT ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1 Digital Repertoires ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2 Research on Barriers to Technology Use ................................ ................................ ...... 6 Need for the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 7 Understand ing the Context of Place ................................ ................................ ............. 8 Towns ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 10 Rural Areas ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 13 Statement of Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 19 Purpose of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 21 Research Questions ................................ ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ............................ 21 Summary ................................ ................................ ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ 23 Theoretical Lenses and Framework ................................ ................................ ............ 26 Funds of Knowledge ................................ ................................ ............................... 26 Funds of Identity ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 28 Repertoire s of Practice ................................ ................................ ............................ 29 Transactional Theory ................................ ................................ ............................... 32 Fitting the Lenses Together ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 Digital Repertoires and Classrooms ................................ ................................ ............ 37 Grounding in Literature ................................ ................................ .............................. 39

PAGE 8

viii Technology Integration Literature ................................ ................................ ........... 40 Out of School Use of Technologies ................................ ................................ ........ 47 Digital Divide ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 51 The Contexts of Town and Rural Schools ................................ .............................. 56 Summary of the Literature ................................ ................................ .......................... 62 III. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS ................................ ................................ ................ 65 Purp ose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 65 ................................ ................................ ..................... 67 Rationale ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 67 Research Design for Project ................................ ................................ .................... 69 Methodological Approaches to the Research ................................ .......................... 71 Research Setting and Participants ................................ ................................ ............... 75 Research Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 75 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 80 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 81 Collection Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ 81 Data Management ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 91 Data Organiz ation ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 91 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 92 Analysis Tools ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 93 Trustworthines s ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 95 Ethics ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 97 Protection of Participants ................................ ................................ ........................ 97

PAGE 9

ix Tr ansparency ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 98 Unanticipated Dilemmas ................................ ................................ ......................... 98 Researcher Stance ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 98 IV. THE CONTEX TS OF SMALLTOWN AND TOWN SCHOOL ELEMENTARY ...... 100 Smalltown ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 100 Town School Elementary (TSE) ................................ ................................ ............... 103 Fourth Grade ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 105 TSE Teacher 1: Faith Hughes ................................ ................................ ................... 107 ................................ ................................ ....................... 108 ................................ ......... 122 ................................ ................................ ......................... 123 Digital Knowledge ................................ ................................ ................................ 123 Digital Skills ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 124 Digital Apti tude ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 126 Digital Beliefs ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 127 Digital Attitudes ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 130 ................................ ................................ 133 TSE Teacher 2: Natalie Kincaid ................................ ................................ ............... 133 ................................ ................................ .................... 134 ................................ ...... 146 ................................ ................................ ...................... 147 Digital Knowledge ................................ ................................ ................................ 147 Digital Skills ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 148

PAGE 10

x Digital Aptitude ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 150 Digital Beliefs ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 150 Digital Attitudes ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 153 ................................ .............................. 157 Composite Description of Fourth Grade Students ................................ .................... 158 Composite Summary of Technologies used by Six Students ................................ 158 Composite TSE Student Digital Repertoire ................................ .............................. 160 Digital Knowledge ................................ ................................ ................................ 160 Digital Skills ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 160 Digital Aptitude ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 163 Digital Be liefs ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 164 Digital Attitudes ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 165 ................................ ............................. 166 TSE Transactions Around Technology ................................ ................................ ..... 166 Faculty Transactions ................................ ................................ ............................. 166 Teacher Student Transactions ................................ ................................ ............... 169 Student to Student Interactions ................................ ................................ ............. 175 Summary of Interactions Around Technology ................................ ...................... 179 V. THE CONTEXTS OF RURAL JUNCTION AND RURAL ELEMENTARY ACADEMY ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 180 Rural Junction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 180 Rural Elementary Academy (REA) ................................ ................................ .......... 18 1 History ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 181

PAGE 11

xi Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 182 Physical Organization ................................ ................................ ........................... 185 The 5/ 6 Campus ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 189 REA Teacher: Star Ewing ................................ ................................ ......................... 190 ................................ ......................... 191 ................................ ...................... 209 ................................ ......................... 217 ................................ ........... 228 ................................ ................................ ........................... 228 Digital Knowledge ................................ ................................ ................................ 228 Digital Skills ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 229 Digital Apti tude ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 234 Digital Beliefs ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 235 Digital Attitudes ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 238 Composite Description of Fifth and Sixth Grade Students ................................ ....... 242 Composite Summary of Technologies Used by Five Students ............................. 242 Composite REA Student Digital Repertoire ................................ ............................. 244 Digital Knowledge ................................ ................................ ................................ 245 Digital Skills ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 246 Digital Aptitude ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 249 Digital Be liefs ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 250 Digital Attitudes ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 250 ................................ ... 251

PAGE 12

xii REA Interactions Around Technology ................................ ................................ ..... 252 Faculty Interactions ................................ ................................ ............................... 252 Teacher Student Interactions ................................ ................................ ................. 253 Student Student Interactions ................................ ................................ ................. 256 Summary of Interactions Around Technology ................................ ...................... 258 VI. ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................ ......................... 260 Research Question 1: Digital Tools and Their Use ................................ .................. 262 How Digital Technologies Were Used ................................ ................................ .. 263 What Counts in the Classroom ................................ ................................ .............. 271 Contextualized Digital Repertoires and Classroom Instruction ............................ 271 Research Question 2: Affordances ................................ ................................ ............ 274 Teacher Perceived Affordances ................................ ................................ ............ 275 Student Perceived Affordances ................................ ................................ ............. 290 Summary of Chapter ................................ ................................ ............................. 296 VII. DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 298 Interpretation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 299 ................................ .. 302 ................................ ..................... 320 The Centrality of Efficiency ................................ ................................ .................. 329 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 333 Directions for Future Research ................................ ................................ ................. 336 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 342

PAGE 13

xiii REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 344 APPENDIX ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 368 A. TEACHER CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ ...................... 368 B. ADULT CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ ........................... 371 C. PARENT C ONSENT FOR MINOR CHILD ................................ ................................ 374 D. PARENT CONSENT FORM IN SPANISH ................................ ................................ .. 377 E. STUDENT ASSENT FORM ................................ ................................ .......................... 380 F. REPERTORY GRID FORM ................................ ................................ .......................... 381 G. INVENTOR Y INTERVIEW FOR TEACHERS ................................ ............................ 382 H. INVENTORY INTERVIEW FOR STUDENTS ................................ ............................ 384

PAGE 14

1 C HAPTER I SETTING CONTEXT When I assumed the job as technology teacher at an elementary school in 1999, classroom teachers depended on once a week computer lab visits to provide almost all technology based experiences for their students. For most teachers, using costly software pac kages for skills practice sufficed as an appropriate computer activity. However, for me, the use of specialty software seemed to disrupt classroom instruction, rather than enhance it. I considered the computer lab a learning space that should link to and extend classroom instruction. I promoted co planning with teachers so I could assist in developing computer based lessons that integrated with classroom instruction. Building collaborative co teaching relationships with 22 classroom teachers taught me abou pedagogy, but also of what I termed their digital repertoires Repertoire refers to the sum of what a person can do in a specific domain. It encompasses (Wasley, Hampel, & Clark, 1997, p. 45) experi genres, performances, and personal passions that comprise their musical worlds. But how musicians use their repertoires is influenced by contextual factors such as the availability of instruments or performance gigs, policies of performance venues, responses from audiences or critics, fads in music, social connections, and personal aspirations. When performing, a musician taps into his/her music repertoire but the pe rformance itself is mediated by the context of the performance venue.

PAGE 15

2 In education research, Gutierrez and Rogoff (2003) have written about linguistic and cultural historical repertoires that influence how individuals participate in practices within cultural communities. Repertoires, or ways of engaging in activities, develop from observations, neither static nor universal (Gutierrez, 2002) E ven when cultural practices are organized as regular activities across a cultural group, individuals may think about the activities in different ways (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) skills, values, and patterns from multiple cultural groups (Gutierrez, 2002) The variety of practices available within a repertoire requires cultivating the dexterity to determine which approach from the repertoire is a ppropriate in a specific context (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) Digital Repertoires A digital repertoire consists of the combination of aptitude for working in digital environments, technological skills, expertise with digital tools and devices, and applications of domain knowledge to the use of digital technologies. Because digital technologies include a wide unique (Bennett & Maton, Walker, 2015) productivity software, digital photography, social media primarily on a mobile phone, and blogging. Anothe r person may write programming code both at work and home, produce digital videos, participate in geocaching, and access weather data and international news on a tablet. Overall, digital repertoires represent a set of dynamic, ever changing set of resourc es individuals can draw on when working in digital environments. Repertoires change as other people, including peers, family members, and work based contacts, introduce new devices or

PAGE 16

3 ns with colleagues, administrators, outside experts, and even students (Ertmer & Ottenbreit Leftwich, 2010; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002) The introduction of new devices and equipment also increases digital r epertoires (Tully, 2003) Digital repertoires are expanded through experiences in both personal and professional arenas. What is learned at work or school can dramatically differ from the technologies learned and used at home (Mitzner et al., 2010) However, whether learned at work, home, school, or in the community, the sum total of the digital repertoire is always available for access. Skills and knowledge will often cross the home/work/school boundaries (Fitzpatrick & Stringer, 2007) When teachers plan for technology use in the classroom, they draw on the sum total of their digital repertoires (Mitzner et al., 2010) Many teachers may have extensive repertoires because compared to the general population, teachers may own more technology gadgetry than other adults (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, & Friedrich, 2013) However, decisions about t he use of digital technologies in classrooms are constrained by the context of the professional environment (Lim & Chai, 2008) structural factors, 2) curriculum re sources, 3) educational context, and 4) pedagogical beliefs (Ertmer, 1999; Mumtaz, 2000) Structural factors refer to the equipment, devices, networking capacity, and technological support accessible in a school. In many educational contexts, structural factors are district controlled. Curriculum resources may be defined as packaged curriculum educational software, web based subscriptions, computer based assessments, and other digital tools that support content based teaching. Curriculum resources are also often district controlled, although teachers or principals may make professional decisio ns to

PAGE 17

4 supplement district resources with monies obtained from parent support groups, grants, the school budget, or personal funds. The educational context describes the policies and priorities of state, district, and building administrators; community expe ctations; current students; and elementary school culture. Educational contexts often exert external pressures on teachers, and some aspects may be unacknowledged undercurrents within a culture (Eyal & Roth, 2011; efficacy of technology to meet learning needs are recognized as powerful indicators of how teachers use digital technologies in the classroom (Ertmer & Ottenbreit Leftwich, 201 0) Even when teachers are colleagues in a school and, so, experience the same contextual influences, their pedagogical beliefs about technology may cause them to interpret how to use technology with students in different ways (Miranda & Russell, 2011) Although digita l repertoires are always available, the settings in which individuals employ digital skills influence which skills are accessed. Digital repertoires, then, can be considered contextualized digital repertoires ons by the affordances (opportunities and constraints) (Gibson, 1986; Hammond, 2010) of the local setting. As a result, classroom implementation of digital technology may vary significantly across elementary school environments. Consider two teachers in the elementary school where I worked. At that time, the early 2000s, neither Heather nor Jeff (both pseudonyms) had extensive digital repertoires. Both knew how to access and navigate the internet, send and receive email, work with drawing programs and productivity software (especially Microsoft Office and PowerPoint), use digital cameras, function with a document c amera, and access streaming video. Because they had minimal access

PAGE 18

5 to digital technology in their homes, their digital repertoires had been built primarily through school and district technology trainings. However, their contexts, interests, and pedagogi cal approaches strongly influenced how they used their digital repertoires in and out of school. When Heather realized she could email than notes, her out of schoo l technology use most often centered on emailing or surfing the web for home decorating ideas. In school, Heather leveraged her digital repertoire to provide visual materials for her first graders, many of whom were beginning readers. Her document camera w as in constant use to demonstrate handwriting, display student work, share pictures from picture books and magazines, and show daily comics for practice with inferencing skills. insects, and rocks during science lessons. She was the first on staff to learn about streaming video and prided herself on switching among video clips, website photos, and the document camera during classroom instruction. When students worked on computer s, they often inserted digital the classroom context, her digita l repertoire extended across visual media. In his personal life, Jeff used computers for connecting with Estonians he had met during his Peace Corps service. He not only emailed his friends, but also followed their blogs I nfluenced by ESL experiences and conscious of the importance of language development, he engaged his students in creating whole class visual dictionaries of idioms, analogies, daily vocabulary, and content specific terms. Students worked in collaborative groups to illustrate the Bill of R ights, write persuasive paragraphs from the perspectives of historical figures, create

PAGE 19

6 visual poetry, construct graphic novels, record public service announcements, and build visual maps of the locations in novels with photographs. Students demonstrated th eir work on t he document camera, and students were as likely as Jeff to use the internet ready teacher computer. Although Jeff and Heather had similar digital repertoires and agreed on the pedagogic value of visual materials, their classroom technology us e s differed dramatically. Contextual expectations, influenced how Jeff and Heather implemented the same digital resources in their repertoires. Technology Integration Complexity Researchers have reported teachers rarely use digital technologies, and particularly computers, in classrooms in appropriate and effective ways (Buckenmeyer, 2010; Ertmer, Ottenbreit Leftwich, Sadik, Send urur, & Sendurur, 2012; Gorder, 2008; Pittman & Gaines, 2015; van Broekhuizen, 2016) A common expectation has been that as teachers gain computer proficiency and access to reliable technologies, they will use instructional technology for teaching and l earning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) But teac hers use classroom technology in myriad ways, not all of which lead to improved student learning (Davies & West, 2014) An emerging view is the (Cuban, 1986, p. 63) requiring teachers to coordinate knowledge of pedagogy, content, and technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) with personal and social beliefs about pedagogy and technology (Ertmer, 1999) within the context of an organization and community (Koh, Chai, & Tay, 2014; McGrail, 2005; Okojie, Olinzock, & Okojie Boulder, 2005) When technology integration is looked at through the lens of complexity, finding appropriate and effective ways to use technology in classrooms m ay require more content, pedagogical, and content knowledge

PAGE 20

7 than toolboxes hold. In a technology integration need analysis conducted with more than 800 teachers who have been given a national curriculum (universal content) Vatanartiran and Karadeniz found the highest need to integrate technology to the curriculum and their pedagogical competencies for technology use in learning environments (2015, p. 217) Need for the Study Although education researchers have asserted teachers are not using technology effectively (Buckenmeyer, 2010; Ertmer et al., 2012; Gorder, 2008; Pittman & Gaines, 2015; van Broekhuizen, 2016) these researchers often dr e w their conclusion s from large datasets or one shot observations of teachers. Ethnographic studies can provide in depth knowledge of how technology is used in classrooms about technology us e in classrooms. Most investigations of how teachers use technology in the (C. Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013; S. H. Liu, 2012; Orlando, 2014; Polly, 2011; Polly & Hannafin, 2011) or implications from the introduction of specific digital tools in the classroom (Beauchamp, 2004; Ciampa & Gallagher, 2013; Hatten, 2012; Murcia, 2014; Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas Walker, 2010; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002) (Becker & Ravitz, 2001, p. 4) Research of individual teachers have often relied on fewer than five observations (Dias, 2001; Ottenbreit Leftwich, Glaz ewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010; Tsai, 2015) although Angers and Machtmes (2005) reported their time as 25 days over three classrooms (about 8 observations per teacher) and Banister (2005) spent two months (8 16 observations) in a classroom.

PAGE 21

8 Limited involvement in a classroom, especially fewer than five observations, fails to detect whether the observed practices are on going instructional choices or one shot special projects meant to impress the observer. Not only did th e research in this re port extend over a school year, I designed the study to include extensive observations of classroom teachers using technology across their curriculum. I spent more than 440 hours observing three teachers in two schools. Altogether I spent 53 full days in t he two schools. Understanding the Context of Place The context of place, or geographic locale, has also had little attention from education scholars researching how technology is used in schools Classification of geographic locales affects how people and places are perceived (Ayers, 2011) and funded (B. Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2010; Johnson, Showalter, Klein, & Lester, 2014) Federal departments classify places from an urban centric perspe ctive (Ayers, 2011 ; National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine, 2016) The urban centric view normalizes outside of the urbanized centers as classification system defined (Ratcliffe, Burd, Holder, & Fields, 2016, p. 4) The classification has marginalized town and rural populations and resulted in inequitable government funding (B. Baker et al., 2010; Gagnon & Mattingly, 2015; Johnson et al., 2014) T he U.S. government separates schools into four major place types: City, Suburb, Town, and Rural (U.S. Depart ment of Education National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2016) Each type is then subdivided further. City and Suburb schools are distinguished by the

PAGE 22

9 size of the urban area: Large, Mid size, or Small. Town and Rural schools are subdivided by their proximity to urban centers: Fringe, Distant, or Remote. Locales differ significantly (see Table 1). Towns have the lowest percentage of traditional public schools in the U.S. at 13%, while suburb locales have the highest percentage of schools (32%). R ural areas and city schools are slightly less common (28% and 27%, respectively) than suburb schools (Glander, 2016) However, the percentages of students served by city and suburb schools is higher (30% and 40%, respectively) than town and rural schools (11% and 19%, respectively) (Glander, 2016) The percentage of students living in mid high to high poverty varies significantly: 66% of students in city schools; 38% of suburb students; 59% of town students; and 48% of rural students (Kena et al., 2015) Table 1 School Data by Locale School locale Total number of schools Average school enrollment Percentage of US schools Percentage of US students Percentage of students in mid high to high poverty City 23,632 580 27% 30% 66% Suburb 28,292 640 32% 40% 38% Town 11,666 447 13% 11% 59% Rural 25,152 391 28% 19% 48% Note Data taken from Glander (2016) The schools in this ethnographic study were drawn from the Town, Remote and the Rural, Fringe schoo the research about town and rural schools is important.

PAGE 23

10 Towns 49,999 people (Geverdt, 2015; Ratcliffe et al., 2016) The U S has about 19,500 incorporated areas (cities, towns, boroughs, or villages) (Gibb & Johnson, 2015) and almost 16,500 (85%) have fewer than 10,000 people (Cohen, Hatchard, & Wilson, 2015) Most of the 16,500 incorporated areas would qualify as towns (Geverdt, 2015) yet I could find little research literature that identified towns as the research s ite. S ome researchers may subsume towns under the rural label (see Palmer, Kosciw, & Bartkiewicz, 2012; Sundeen & Sundeen, 2013) I grew up in a town of 9,000 people and return annually to visit family and friends. As I researched towns in America, I considered what I read against the backdrop of where my roots lie and my experiences in literature about town s aligned with my experiences. The familiarity convinced me towns can be described with generalities, even though each town has a distinctive character. To wns act as social and economic centers for daily interactions since they are large enough to support at least one grocery store chain, banking center, and town library. Large corporations usually do not settle in towns because of the insufficient size of t he workforce and customer base. Instead, towns depend on a variety of small businesses, single owner enterprises, and local farms (Wuthnow, 2013) Even when a town business is part of a larger institution, business is conducted in the town (Tolbert, Irwin, Lyson, & Nucci, 2001) The social and economic contributions from small business own (Besser, 2012)

PAGE 24

11 The social cla ss hierarchy of towns reflects differences in income, education, occupation, and lifestyle. Retirees are a separate class. During their early years in the community, they may have been part of any social level and probably retain that social standing in re tirement. Retirees in towns often have aged in place, meaning they have grown old while living in the community (A. Q. Liu & Besser, 2003) and they face strong expectations to actively participate in community volunteer work (Wuthnow, 2013) At the top of the social hierarchy, formal and informal power positions are held by a small percent (2 5%) of residents who have wealth, extensive landholdings, and possibly old money. High social status in small towns also carries an obligation to contribute through volunteer work (Wuthnow, 2013) College educated residents in white collar service jobs, such as teaching, government services, and healthcare form the second, service class strata. Often business owners and farm owners fit into this class as well. Service class workers are highly visible because their professions cause them to interact with many people across the commun ity (Wuthnow, 2013) Although their professions could be practiced in many places, service class workers have often chosen to live in a town, perhaps because they grew up in a small town or value the small town experience (Falcone, Wells, & Weisheit, 2002; Tolbert et al., 2001) For instance, many college graduates in education choose to return to their home areas for their first teaching positions (Reininger, 2012) A third segment of residents, possibly the majority, work at hourly wage jobs. They generally have high school diplomas and perhaps some vocational or technical training. Those with stable jobs, such as retail and administrative clerks, wait staf f, school bus drivers, cooks, and janitors, often live near their work and earn low to moderate incomes. Wageworkers with

PAGE 25

12 less stable jobs, as in seasonal construction, mining, oil and gas extraction, and transportation, may sometimes be priced out of the housing market during boom times and need to relocate to neighboring, less expensive communities (Wuthnow, 2013) A substrata of the hourly wageworker is the working poor. The working poor include people earning low wages, lacking health insurance, and having no opportunity to build retirement funds. Such residents may work in fast food, childcare, farming, or low levels of construction. Farmers and business owners impacted by a depressed economy may also fit into this class (Wuthnow, 2013) Employer employee relationships in towns are often casual and personal, as are the interactions between employees and customers (Tolbert et al., 2001) Social class determine s where individuals live, although townspeople of all income levels develop relationships through social events, churches, businesses, municipal offices, schools, and other venues. Residents frequent the same coffee shops, gas stations, and hairdressers, and even though they may not know one another by name, they feel as though they know everyone in town (Bes ser, 2012; Wuthnow, 2013) Residential segregation may subtly divide the working poor from other residents (Lichter, Parisi, Taquino, & Grice, 2010; MacTavish & Salamon, 2006) For instance, low wage workers live on the outskirts, frequently in clusters of trailer homes that are less expensive than in town rentals (Nelson & Hiemstra, 2008) The working poor put in overtime, commute long distances, and have limited transportation opti ons. They are less likely to be visible in stores, gas stations, and local establishments during daytime hours, as more affluent residents may be. Instead, their shopping and other uses of public spaces may happen in the evenings after the wage earner retu rns with the family car (Nelson & Hiemstra, 2008)

PAGE 26

13 For m any working poor, the trailer represents an upward step into home ownership and stable living conditions (MacTavish & Salamon, 2006) They want their children to transcend trailer life. But, because their trailers are so often segregated from the town, children of working poor parents are also segregated from town peers. Children who can access social netwo rk s outside the neighborhood boundaries are more likely to flourish in school and find acceptance in town (MacTavish & Salamon, 2006) Town schools. rural areas. Many students walk to school although the students from outlying areas are bused. Almost 50% of young town teachers are likely to have grown up in the area (Reininger, 2012) and, in my experience, teachers in towns often live in the town s where they teach. The school (Wuthnow, 2013) Rural A reas When rural areas are defined through an urban centric perspective, the definitions tend to over emphasize homogeneity among rural populations, despite exten sivel y different rural contexts As Howley, Theobald, and Howley (2005) succinctly wrote: vilified and romanticized, and rarely understood or authentically appreciated by outsiders ( p. 5) Rural areas are defined as settlements with fewer than 2,500 residents, open countryside, and farms (Lichter et al., 2010) Yet, rural areas differ from each other so much that it is difficult (Ratcliffe et al., 2016, p. 3) (Flora, Flora, & Gasteyer, 2016, p. 7) Although rural areas are often thought of as isolated and small, many rural

PAGE 27

14 communities sit on the fringe s of urbanized areas and face the threat of being overtaken by urban sprawl (Flora et al., 2016; Greenough & Nelson, 2015) Rural communities do share some commonalities. In comparison to metropolitan areas, rural poverty rates are more likely to be higher, more concentrated, and more persistent across generations (Mattingly, Johnson, & Schaefer, 2011; Monk, 2007) Because of the difficult economic circumstances in rur al areas, residents with higher education levels leave for better communities less able to adapt as times change (Carr & Kefalas, 2009; Carr, Lichter, & Kefalas, 2013) The influx of immigrants to rural areas has provided welcome tax revenues, but has also placed a burden on schools and services (Carr et al., 2013) The population spread of a rural area will often include widely separated homes and one o r more villages or settlements. A rural village may have a gas station convenience store or a small locally owned general store, but rural residents, many of whom live outside villages, often depend on nearby larger towns for general shopping needs. In fac t, rural settlements typically lack institutional structures, such as daycare, youth development programs, local police services, and medical facilities to serve the needs of local residents (Monk, 2007) Rural schools. Staffing rural schools is a challen ge for administrators. As with town schools, about 40% of young rural teachers begin their careers within 20 miles of where they attended high school (Reininger, 2012) However, rura l schools may produce fewer teachers than they subsequently need. Staffing is also complicated by lower wages, geographic isolation from shopping and serv ic es, and the necessity to teach multiple content areas (Eppley, 2009; Jimerson, 2005) By federal guidelines, rural teachers wh o teach across disciplines need to be highly qualified in each content area which is an additional burden (Gagnon & Mattingly, 2015) Some

PAGE 28

15 administrators value teachers who a re local residents and understand the local community rather than outsiders who may not be able to connect curriculum to the rural context (Eppley, 2009) Just as rural areas are difficult to classify because of the diversity among them, rural s chools differ widely as well. These differences highlight the complexity of generalizing research conducted in rural schools. In general, rural school communities have high levels of poverty. The percentage of rural students who participate in the federal subsidized lunch program range from 11.8% in Connecticut to 81.8% in New Mexico (Johnson et al., 2014) Averages can mislead, though, the extreme values. For instance, the highest need rural district in Connecticut has a poverty rate of 36.2%, three times the state average. Poverty levels decrease as the population size increases; i.e., rural areas with a population size of <1000 have a 42% poverty rate level while small towns of 25,000+ residents have a poverty rate of 23% (Heuertz, Gordon, & Gordon, 2003) Overall, rural areas are more likely to be populated by non Hispanic White and American Indian/Alaskan Native residents than other ethnicities and races (Greenough & Nelson, 2015) However, this varies by state: the percentage of rural students who are children of color varies from 4.6% in Rhode Island to 82.5% in New Mexico (Johnson et al., 2014) Nationally, 3.1% of rural students qualify for English Language Learner services. The percentage by sta te is vastly different, though, with 0% in Rhode Island to 23.4% in New Mexico. The Rocky Mountain states have higher than national average percentages of rural English Language Learners and rural student mobility (students who have moved in the past twelv e months) (Johnson et al., 2014)

PAGE 29

16 While rural schools serve about 19% of U.S. public school students, the variety of schools that fall into the rural category is hard to define (Barley & Beesley, 2007) T he three sub categories of rural schools defined by the NCES reflect vastly different profiles: Rural, Fringe; Rural, Distant; and Rural, Remote (Geverdt, 2015) Within the three categories, Rural, Fringe schools have the widest variability (See Table 2). Table 2 Comparison of Rural School Types with National Rural Averages School Profile % rural students Ave # students % F&R Lunch a % Title 1 National rural average 517 48% 57% Rural, Fringe 62% 583 39% 46% Rural, Distant 29% 307 49% 63% Rural, Remote 10% 170 57% 67% Note Data taken from Geverdt, 2015 a F&R Lunch = Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility. Rural, Fringe schools. Three fifths of rural students attend Rural, Fringe schools, defined as located less than or equal to 5 miles from an urbanized area (population 50,000 or more), as well as rural territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from an urban cluster (population 2,500 to 49,999 ; Geverdt, 2015, p. 2) This means a Rural, Fringe school could be just outside a major metropolitan area, within a metropolitan district, or just outside the boundaries of a small town. A Rural, Fringe school could look like a suburban school, a town school, or neither. Enrollme nt in Rural, Fringe schools averages 583 students, which is higher than the average U.S. school enrollment (517) (Greenough & Nelson, 2015) Ho wever, enrollment sizes are highly dependent on proximity to

PAGE 30

17 urbanized areas; rural schools on the edges of towns are less likely to be large while those on the fringes of major metropolitan areas are more likely to be large schools. Because of the geogr aphical positioning of Rural, Fringe schools, the student free or reduced price lunch eligibility rate (40%) is, on average, lower than other rural areas. Still, the rate varies based on proximity to a metropolitan area. For schools close to urban centers of 50,000+ people, the rate is 36%, but for the schools close to towns, the rate increases to 58% (Greenough & Nelson, 2015) The percentage of Rural, Fringe schools eligible for Title I program s is lower than the national average. Rural, Fringe schools tend to be more like suburban schools than other rural area schools. Rural, Distant schools. Rural, Distant schools are those more than 5 mile s but less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area (population 50,000 or more), as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster (population 2,500 to 49,999 ; Geve rdt, 2015, p. 3) The schools categorized as Rural, Distant are generally smaller than Rural, Fringe schools with an average student enrollment of 307 students, which is about 40% less than the national average school enrollment. Close to 30% of rural students attend Rural, Distant schools. The percentage of students in Rural, Distant schools eligible for subsidized lunches is within one percent of the national average. The percentage of Rural, Distant schools providing Title I programs (63%) is higher than the national aver age (57%) (Greenough & Nelson, 2015) Rural, Distant schools have a narrower range of variation among them than the Rural, Fringe schools. Rura l, Remote schools. Rural, Remote schools serve only 10% of all rural students and are in locales described as rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an urbanized area (population 50,000 or more) and is also more than 10 miles from an urban cluster (population 2,500 to 49,999 ; Geverdt, 2015, p. 3)

PAGE 31

18 This description places Rural, Remote schools in sparsely populated areas a significant distance from any population cluster large enough to meet t he shopping needs of residents. Rural, Remote schools are much smaller (average enrollment, 170 students) than any other types of schools. An advantage of small schools is a low pupil teacher ratio of 13.3 students per teacher (Monk, 2007) However, small enrollments also mean that students are more likely attend multi grade com bination classrooms and schools with larger grade level spans, such as K 6, 6 12, or even K 12 (Greenough & Nelson, 2015) Schools with fewer t han 100 students have a larger share of inexperienced teachers (21% compared with 18% for all public schools) and teachers with minimal educational training (62% compared with 52% for all public schools ; Monk, 2007) Rural, Remote schools bus their students from farther distances in order to collect sufficient enrollment. The transportation costs may draw resources away from providing special services or paying higher salaries (Monk, 2007) The population that qualifies for free and reduced lunch prices (57%) is, on average, similar to the percentage in City schools, which indicates a high level of poverty. Title I programs are provided at a rate of 67%, although this may vary from state to state. Rural, Remote schools tend to have higher percentages of American Indian/Alaskan Native students than other schools (Greenough & Nelson, 2015) This may reflect the number of Rural, Remote schools on reservations. The variations among rural schools underline the importance of knowing the specific demographics o f a rural school when researching. Large scale data that group all rural schools together flatten the distinctive differences among rural schools. Rural areas and schools have been researched more often than Town settings: yet, rural school research accounts for less than 6% of education research (Hardr, Sullivan, & Crowson, 2009) A lack of research in any geographic locale, and particularly in locales alr eady

PAGE 32

19 core (National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine, 2016, p. 2) leaves residents of those areas vulnerable to underfunding, inappropriately designed policies, and misund erstanding (Sherwood, 2001) Additionally, m any education researchers fail to des cribe rural school contexts with enough detail to clarify the locale (Hawley et al., 2016; Koziol et al., 2015) Without a clear description of the rural context, readers have difficulty determining whether the results can be generalized (Hawley et al., 2016) The two schools chosen for my dissertation study are classified Town, Distant and Rural, Fringe by the NCES school classification system (Geverdt, 2015) Stat ement of the Problem Digital technologies have become ubiquitous in society. When I began working with teachers in 1999, few teachers had home computers or internet connections. Now those same teachers not only have wireless networks in their homes, but th ey often carry cell phones with wireless capability in their pockets. In 1999, I was teaching them to use email; now many administrative functions, such as the reporting of attendance, grades, and test scores, are completed online, and email is the preferr ed method of communication with parents. This means teachers are more technologically savvy than they have been in the past; their contextualized digital repertoires have expanded. T may have wrought ch anges in their professional lives as well. For instance, at an urban school where I supported K 3 teachers recently the school principal expected teachers to text her when they needed an immediate administrator response, so, presumably all teachers had text enabled phones. Each classroom had a pod of iPads for student use, although I rarely saw the iPads used for anything other than a school purchased (and

PAGE 33

20 possibly required) reading application. One teacher, the most technologically savvy, easily navigat ed multiple digital resources in her instruction. For instance, she projected a timer from her iPad during small groups to keep her on track and to let students see visually how much time they had left in independent centers. When a student had an outburst the teacher pulled up a catchy video song on an educational website that kept the rest of the class singing while tempers were calmed. The document camera was used for several whole group activities, and the teacher conducted assessments with her iPad so that she could capture data in real time. Another teacher used an interactive whiteboard as a student center for mathematics practice, kept her document camera in regular use, and required students to word process their writing. In a highly impacted schoo l with scripted curriculum and tight daily timelines, the two teachers managed to incorporate technology as an instructional support. Yet, little is known about what happens in classrooms where teachers neither resist nor wholly embrace technology as a too l for classroom teaching and learning. The majority of teachers fall into the category of moderate technology use and researchers do not yet know how those teachers draw on their digital repertoires in school contexts to make decisions about when and how to use technology in the classroom. Researchers have not spent extensive time in the classrooms of moderate technology using teachers to explore how the teac hers and their students make meaning of digital technologies in their classrooms. What technologies are in use? How does technology flow across home school and community boundaries? How do the contexts of the community, school, and classroom, particularl y rural and town contexts, influence tea about using technology?

PAGE 34

21 Purpose of Study and Research Questions The purpose of the inquiry is to explore digital technology use in classrooms of moderate technology using teachers at similar element ary schools in two geographically different contexts of towns and rural areas. I identified two elementary schools with demographic and economic characteristics as close to the state average as possible but in distinctly different geographic locales (town and rural). I spent a total of 5 3 full days over the school year as a participant/observer in three classrooms (approximately 4 40 hours total) to gain a holistic picture of technology use in the classroom. As a participant observer, I entered each school and classroom with the hope of discovering how technology was being used in the classroom. Specifically, I asked RQ 1: How do elementary teachers and their students in two locales (town and rural) use digital tools? 1a. What counts in the classroom as dig ital technology tools? 1b. their technology use in the classroom? RQ2: How do the affordances of digital technology tools influence classroom experiences with digital technology? Significance of the Study Currently, the technology integration research field lacks a clear understanding of how moderate technology using teachers implement the use of digital technologies in their classrooms, and particularly in small town and rural ar eas. In this inquiry, I developed a holistic Additionally, by drawing from two different types of communities, I sought understanding of

PAGE 35

22 how geographic locales and cont exts enabled or constrained the use of digital technologies for teaching and learning. At the heart of the study was an exploration of how teachers and students negotiate d the use of digital technologies in the classroom, given the varied digital repertoir es among and contextual influences on, both teachers and students. I entered the conversation about technology use in elementary classrooms, although not from the traditional approach of critiquing what is not happening and why. Instead, I explored how te chnology was understood and made meaningful from the perspectives of teachers and students. In the next chapter, I review literature forming the basis of the ethnographic investigation. First I explain the conceptual framework influencing the approach I t ook to explore technology use in classrooms. Then I analyze four categories of literature providing background for the key areas of study: 1) technology integration; 2) out of school use of technology devices; 3) the digital divide; and 4) school contexts.

PAGE 36

23 C HAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Research projects are neither a beginning nor an end. Instead, through their inquiries, researchers enter and continue on going discussions. Shaped by the outcomes and theories of past studies, researchers turn their questions toward new, but related, ideas. Each set of questions, each analysis of data, causes broader inquiry and draws additional scholars into the conversa tion. The discussion continues to grow, with generations of new scholars listening to past researchers, generating new questions, and contributing their own findings to enhance the discussion. The discussion I am entering focuses on the central question of the use of digital technologies in the elementary classroom. In this chapter, I am engaging with a cluster of researchers who have asked questions about children, teachers, technology, and learning. I conducted an ethnographic study of three intermediate elementary classrooms in two schools to explore how digital technologies were used by teachers and students for educational purposes. I explored not only how tools were used in schools, but also how students and teachers used technologies in their out of school lives. School context was also important; one school was in a town and one in a rural community In the next section of the chapter, I introduce theorists who have become my intellectual mentors for this project and whose theories created the frame work for my thinking. I based the research project on four theoretical lenses that provide a solid foundation for thinking about elementary school children and teachers using digital technology tools. 1. The Funds of Knowledge concept (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzlez, 1992; Vlez Ibez, 1988) proposes individuals acquire domains of knowledge in their households and use their home knowledge to make meaning of information outside of the home.

PAGE 37

24 2. The concept of Funds of Identity (Esteban Guitart, 2012) grew from the Funds of Knowledge body of literature. Funds of Identity describe the entire knowledge funds developed through interactions at home and with social groups outside 3. Repertoires of practice (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) descri be the shared understandings that guide how individuals engage in everyday activities. Repertoires of practice are individual, since every individual participates in many different social groups daily, and also collective within each social group, since gr oup participants develop common understandings about appropriate behaviors and activities. 4. Transactional theory (Rosenblatt, 1988) expresses the invisible interactions that happen when readers encounter texts. Transactions occur between the reader, who must make sense of the text, and the text which comprises of letters, symbols, and numbers. Neither the reader nor t he text contains the meaning; meaning is produced in transaction s between the reader(s) and text(s). Because meaning is in the transaction s and not the person or text, meaning changes with every transaction. Although transactional theory has primarily been applied to reading, one could argue Funds of Knowledge and Funds of Identity are examples of transactions among members of social groups, including Each of the four theoretical lenses is explained in more detail in the next section of this chapter. The explanation is followed by a description of how the four conceptual lenses digital technologies.

PAGE 38

25 After outlining the theoretical framework, I continue the chapter with an analysis of literature related to the topic of digital technologies in elementary classrooms. The literature study assisted me in understanding what had alread y been explored and what might yet remain been organized into four categories that narrowed the research project I designed: Technology integration: What we currentl technology in classrooms Out of school use of technology: What we currently know about how teachers and students use digital devices outside of school and how that relates to in school use Digital divide: What c auses unequal access to digital technologies and how that affects families and schools School contexts: What we currently know about technology access and use in town and rural schools In the literature on technology integration, I review how classroom int egration of technology has been researched. The literature demonstrates the frequent use of large data sets and teacher self report data about technology use. I then synthesize the few technology integration studies conducted ethnographically in classrooms Three ethnographic studies in the early 2000s focused on the practices of exemplary technology using teachers, which was of value for seeing possibilities for integration. In two more recent ethnographic studies, researchers explored integration practice s of elementary teachers having received professional development and of a veteran teacher who was a reluctant user. In each of the studies, the focus was the teacher. The five ethnographic studies leave open the question of how both students and teachers mediate the use of technologies in the classroom.

PAGE 39

26 Students and teachers use digital tools outside of school as well as in school. Large datasets have revealed that technology tools have proliferated, but little of the research is specific to elementary st udents or to teachers in general. In this section of the literature review, I identify of school u se of digital tools. Questions of access to digital tools have surfaced in the literature as well. Research has identified economic and socio cultural factors that exacerbate the divide. Additional studies have suggested improved access alone does not eli minate the divide. I provide an analysis of the literature to highlight the gap in knowledge about how the digital divide impacts individual students and teachers. Finally, education researchers have studied urban and suburban schools far more often than town and rural schools. I synthesize the elementary education literature for town and rural schools to demonstrate how little has been researched about town and rural school contexts. Theoretical Lenses and Framework four theoretical lenses in educational research: Funds of Knowledge (Moll et al., 19 92; Vlez Ibez, 1988) ; Funds of Identity (Esteban Guitart, 2012) ; repertoires of practice (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) ; and transactional theory (Rosenblatt, 1988) The four theoretical frames are Funds of Knowledge he first cultural group to which the child belongs. It is through interactions with more knowledgeable people in the family network that language develops (Vygotsky, 1978) And as children absorb and reproduce language based

PAGE 40

27 on their interactions, they also develop a toolkit of attitudes, beliefs, skills, knowledge, and cultural practices shaped by their observations and participation in family life (Rogoff, Moore, Correa Chvez, & Dexter, 2015; Rogoff, Paradise, Arauz, Correa Chavez, & Angelillo, 2003; Teale, 1986) The toolkit carries practices and traditions that have been historically threaded through th e family as well as new beliefs and behaviors dynamically adjusted by ever changing family circumstances (Moll et al., 1992) No one person in the family knows all the family cultural pra ctices and histories, nor can the family be defined by one particular practice. Even when participating in a common practice, family members may conceptualize the practice differently (Gutie rrez, 2002) In my own life, I often find that my brother (one year younger than I) and I tell almost contradictory stories about the same childhood activities and traditions. Additionally, because we interacted with the family diffe rently from one another, we have significantly different memories, perceptions of our parents, and relationships with siblings. Even as we participate in commonplace family practices and traditions, our toolkits of family knowledge are individual, build on personal experiences and interests, and change as we gain insights from one another. The family knowledge pass ed on to children has been labe led Funds of Knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) The term Funds of Knowledge has customarily been capitalized when referring to the general concept, and not capitalized when referring to the knowledge individuals possess, a custom I will follow as well. Researchers in the Funds of Knowledge project or iginally focused on only a portion of the toolkit (historically accumulated family knowledge of occupational and household practices) to document skills that teachers could incorporate into curricular units ( Gonzlez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) Funds of knowledge then were limited to the cultural and household knowledge

PAGE 41

28 essential for household survival. Implicitly, funds of knowledge included the attitudes, beliefs, and cultural practices of families as well ( Gonzlez et al., 2005) It would be difficult to separate occupational skills from attitudes about work and money, for instance, or family foods from the social practices of eating meals. Ethnographic interviews conducted by teachers in the Funds of Knowledge Project revealed additional assets such a s familial ways of interacting, educational hopes and aspirations, and linguistic dexterity ( Gonzlez et al., 2005) Funds of Identity Families do not stay isolated C hildren observe and participate in other cultural groups as part of the family unit. The cultural groups co uld be religious, neighborhood, fraternal, social, ethnic, or race based. All are socially constructed collections of people who develop their own ways of engaging, their own practices (Esteban Guitart, 2012) As children observe and participate in the cultural groups with their families, their tool kits expand to include the skills, knowledge, and beliefs that conform to the different cultural networks. Children develop adaptability to choose appropriate approaches for cultural activities (Esteban Guitart, 2012) Children also join cultural networks outside of their families. For instance, n eighborhood play has its own cultural practices that have developed historically and are taught through observation and participation. Schooling, too, has its own cultural practices. Each year, most children are placed in classrooms separate from any other family members. Even if siblings share a classroom, each child will have different experiences and perceptions of the cultural community. Esteban Guitart (2012) proposed that children develop Funds of Identity that combine family funds of knowledge with their own specialized knowledge and skills built outside the family unit. Funds of Identity are the collection of practices, knowledge, skills, and beliefs developed through interactions and transactions in social and cultural groups (Moll &

PAGE 42

29 Esteban G uitart, 2014) Funds of Identity are historically and culturally rooted in family funds of knowledge and also dynamic and cumulative over time as individuals participate in social circumstances and activities (Esteban Guitart & Moll, 2014) Moll et al. (1992) talked about Funds of Knowledge concept as the assets students take to school from their homes, and Esteban Guitart (2012) expanded the framework to include the social/cultural knowledge children gain from cultural groups outside of the family. Both researchers were seeking ways to of knowledge and identity, teachers could contextualize schooling for children from non domina nt cultures. Using the Funds of Knowledge and Funds of Identity frameworks, some researchers have been able to initiate social justice projects in classrooms (Subero, Vila, & Esteban Guitart, 2015; E. Tan, Barton, Turner, & Gutirrez, 2012) The concepts of Funds of Knowledge and Funds of Identity place attention on the ways social and cultural pr actices. Understanding the concepts assists teachers and researchers in exploring the knowledge children bring to school as assets to be leveraged into curricular units to contextualize learning for children. Repertoires of Practice Along similar lines, Gutirrez and Rogoff (200 3) conceptualized repertoires of practice. Their starting point was the importance of countering the commonplace reductive approach of based on ethnicity. Fo r instance, research on learning styles tended to characterize cultural groups as conforming to particular styles as though cultural patterns were inherent rather than

PAGE 43

30 learned through observing and participating in the cultural practices of an ethnic, raci al, or social group (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff et al., 2015) Unlike Moll et al. (1992) who started with the family as the unit of influence, Gutirrez and Rogoff (2003) started with cultural practices. Cultural practices should not be equated with race or ethnicity, but rather with the ways of living i n everyday life within cultural groups (Rogoff et al., 2015) Because e veryday lives are often associated with ethnic or racial social groups, some cultural practices may appear to be more closely aligned with a particular ethnic or racial group than with other groups. But repertoires of practice extend beyond ethnicity or ra ce to envelop the many ways of engaging in everyday activities that individuals develop over time and space (Rogoff et al., 2015) (Gutierrez, 2002, p. 314) Although culture is relatively stable, cultural practices and traditions in constant tension with changing environments and circumstances evolve over time (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) As Rogoff et al. (2015) explained, individuals actively dev elop ways of everyday living based on the routines and practices of previous generations, personal histories and experiences, interests, cultural traditions, and identifications with cultural groups. These ways of living, which dynamically change as circum stances change, guide the choices individuals make about how to engage in activities (Gutierrez, 2002) Cultural practices and routines are largely invisible because t hey are tacitly encouraged and taught through observation and participation. Tacit lessons from participation in routines and traditions are especially powerful because they are so often unexamined (Rogoff et al., 2015) Yet, learned cultural practices determine how people engage in interactions.

PAGE 44

31 Key features of the concept of repertoires of practice are 1. among the practices within their repertoires. 2. Although certain practices are more common in some cultural communities than in others, it is imp ortant not to assume that they necessarily characterize individuals from those communities (so as to avoid static, essentialist racial or ethnic characterizations). 3. at the s ame time as maintaining some continuities. 4. determine how to engage with the everyday routines and practices of their circumstances (Rogoff et al., 2015) R epertoire s of practice are most noticeable when social interactions do not go the w ay individuals expect. The conflict between what was expected and what happened disturbs the equilibrium. Group members negotiate new or modified ways of engaging, although this negotiation is not necessarily reflective or even conscious. The outcome of the negotiated transaction is a reaffirmation, adjustment, or creation of a cultural practice i repertoire and, usually but not always, the repertoire of practices within the group (Rogoff et al., 2015) In learning situations, the conflict, tension, and contradiction of cultural practices may change the learning community and lead to the idiosyncratic nature of classrooms (Gutierrez, 2002) For instance, students and the classroom teacher generally develop a cultural practice for

PAGE 45

32 l practice, developed in another classroom, may differ. The conflict that arises between how the new student is accustomed to entering the classroom and the cultural practice of the students who are established members requires negotiation and adjustment. Generally, the practices of the established community will prevail and the new student will adapt. However, sometimes the learning community may adjust its practice or even create a new practice for classroom entry. Repertoires of practice are socially c onstructed through observation and participation, dynamic as environments change, and highly individual. Since individuals are members of more than one community, they develop whole toolkits of ways for engaging in cultural practices from which they select appropriate approaches for specific situations (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) Rogoff et al. (2015) suggested cultural communities can also develop community repertoires of practice that are historically and socially shaped. As with individual repertoires of practice, no one person knows all the practices in the community repertoire, nor is there a gu arantee that any practice is understood in the same way by all members (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) Transactional Theory Rosenblatt (1995) ciated with the ( p. 26) In the content area of reading, response) or the reader extracted meaning from (interpreted) the text (Rosenblatt, 1994) The concept implied all readers would have the same understanding s of and experience s with texts. Instead, Rosenblatt (1995) suggested reading was a tran saction between the reader and (Connell, 1996)

PAGE 46

33 The transaction of knowing changes both the knower and what is known (Rosenblatt, 1988) In the field of reading, transactional theory holds that the meaning of any text comes from the transaction between the text and reader. Text does not have meaning in itself; its meaning must be activated by a reader. And the reader does not impart meaning to the text but rather organizes the symbols in the text into meaningful language (Rosenblatt, 1988) The meaning itself sits in the transactional space between the reader and text. Additionally, both the reader and text are influenced by social events outside the text. The author choose s specific words, situations, and symbols to convey ideas, and those choices reflect social mores to the text to assist in interpretation. While reading, the reade r must continually monitor and adjust the interpretation of the text as the flow of words conveys more specific details (Rosenblatt, 1994) The same text will have different meanings to the reader at different times because the dynamic nature of lived experiences influence s what the reader brings to the text (Rosenblatt, 1995) When a reading transaction takes place among a group of readers during a read aloud, the meaning of the text becomes even more complex as each participant contributes individual responses (Loyd, Harding Dekam, & Hamilton, 2015b) Additionally, what readers notice and wond er about in the text changes with each successive reading of a text (Loyd et al., 2015b; Rosenblatt, 1995) Fitting the Lenses Together The four conceptual lenses of funds of knowledge, funds of identity, repertoires of digital repertoires. Figure 1 is a visual representation of the theoretical framework.

PAGE 47

34 Figure 1. Visual Representation of the t heoretical f ramework underlying the research study In the visual representation (Figure 1), the house label ed Funds of Knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) ser ves as the foundation or center piece of the theoretical framework. I chose the house shape because learning starts at home (Vlez Ibez & Greenberg, 2005) (1978) writings about chil knowledgeable others in a household as resources for learning. According to Vygotsky (1978) social interactions between the child seeking to learn language and the more knowledgeable Vlez Ibez (1988) and Greenberg coined the phrase Funds of Knowledge to describe household survival skills for marginalized families. Moll et al. (1992) enlarged on their

PAGE 48

35 origin, Hispanic households (Moll & Greenberg, 1992) The research on the rural origin, Hispanic households explored the social worlds of adults in the household (Esteban Guitart & Moll, 2014; Hogg, 2011; Moll, 2009) As a result, the documentation captured primarily funds of knowledge contributing to the economic well (Moll & Greenberg, 1992, p. 323) funds of knowledge beyond economics. For example, information about language, literacy, interpersonal relationships, and household traditions could be considered funds of family knowledge (Moll & Gre enberg, 1992) At home, children learn language and family practices through observation, participation, and interactions with more knowledgeable others (Vygotsky, 1978) As children mature, their lives extend beyond the household to other social groups (Hedegaard, Aronsson, Hojholt, & Ulvik, 2012) Each social group has its own repertoire of social practices for everyday language, events, and activities (Rogoff et al., 2015) In the diagram, the ovals surroundin g the house represent outside social groups where children may become participants. To gain membership in such social groups, children first watch from the periphery and absorb the customary ways of being before they become fully integrated members of a co mmunity of practice (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003; Lave & Wenger, 2002) The social groups are dynamic; memberships and practices change as members interact around a common understanding of what they are doing (Lave & Wenger, 2002) Because individuals bring their personal histories and household repertoires with them into social groups, they have agency in shaping the practices of the communities (Hedegaard et al., 2012) Not every practice is unique to only one social group and (Rogo ff et al., 2015)

PAGE 49

36 In the framework diagram, each social group is surrounded by a transacted repertoire of practice circle that represents the common activities and understandings of the group. Social groups develop patterns or no rms, some of which are explicit (i.e., meetings are on Tuesday afternoons or members recite a pledge) and some of which are more subtly understood and not often articulated (i.e., what constitutes membership or appropriate topics of conversation ) to new me mbers (Lave & Wenger, 2002) Because individuals have personal histories and bring preco nceptions of norms, social groups regularly re negotiate practices and activities (Handley, Sturdy, Fincham, & Clark, 2006) The result is that practices may be reaffirmed, altered, or created anew (Rogoff et al., 2015) The interactions among social group members that form the (1994) descriptions of the transactions between readers and texts. In social groups, the negotiations are not one way, but rather are transacted among or b etween individuals, or even individuals and objects. In the process of transaction, nothing remains unchanged. Not only do practices receive scrutiny, but the actors social group members come to new understandings about the practices (Rosenblatt, 1988) The changes may be internal to one group member, who perceives a practice or artifact differently, or may be transacted externally among group members. Finally in the theoretical framework diagram, the entire collection of social groups is enclosed in a Funds of Identity circle. Identities are constructed, shaped, and made visible through the lived experiences of everyday activities and interactions (Esteban Guitart, 2012; Esteban Guitart & Moll, 2014) Our identities are mediated through social interactions and participation in activities and include the sum of our lived experiences (Esteban Guitart, 2012) As social groups morph and change (Vlez Ibez & Greenberg 2005) ; as practices are altered, created, or re affirmed (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) ; and as individuals exert agency on deciding

PAGE 50

37 how central or tangential any social group will be in their lives (Hedegaard et al., 2012) personal identities are reshaped. Researching eleme Digital Repertoires and Classrooms digital funds of knowledge (Marsh et al., 2005) which I have termed digital repertoire. A digital repertoire is the ever increasing collection of digital technology knowledge, skills, aptitudes, beliefs, and attitudes individuals acquire. Like funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) digital repertoires have their origins in the home, since that is the first locus of experience for children. At home, children are exposed to digital tools (or not), attitudes toward digital tools, and beliefs about the value of technology. Digital re pertoires expand as children observe and participate in other social and cultural communities, particularly as their digital networks extend through the cyberworld (Poole, 2017) Individuals develop digital funds of identity that dynamically change as circumstances change (Esteban Guitart & Moll, 2014) Through observation of and participation in digital practices, children add to their digital repertoires (Esteban Guitart, 2 012) Like repertoires of practice, digital repertoires are individually owned, socially constructed, and highly varied (Rogoff et al., 2015) Digital repertoires include beliefs, values, and practices centered on the use of digital technologies As is described in the development of cul tural and linguistic repertoires of practice (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) i ndividual digital repertoires are not located within specific social groups, although digital practices may exist as al repertoires are an aspect of identity funds (Esteban Guitart & Moll, 2014) An individual may participate in digital practices in any, and even all, social communities and yet is unlikely to use the entire

PAGE 51

38 digital repertoire in any one social group. Instead, digital repertoires are highly individualized and often overlap across many aspects of home and social lives (Hsi, 2007) In each social community, though, transactions among the participants contribute to a collective digital repertoire of the community (Poole, 2017) Teachers and students often gain technology knowledge and skills though observations and participation with peers and family members although they may receive expl icit training as well (Hoffman & Vance, 2005) Even when community members receive explicit training, not every individual will conceptualize the focus of the training in the same way. Therefore, individual digital repertoires wil l vary based on lived experiences, observations of others, beliefs, values, and personal interests (Hsi, 2007) In classroom settings, teachers and students all have individual digital repertoires. As part of building a community digital repertoire, transactional theory (Rosenblatt, 1988) becomes salient. When students participate in classrooms by using technology devices and processes, the individuals and tools, like text, are not separate entities that interact. The tool does not simply provide meaning to the student, nor does the student or teacher simply extract meaning from the tool. Digital activities take place as complex transactions among the tools, teachers, and students, played out within the s ocial structures of the classroom (Rosenblatt, 198 8; Sutherland et al., 2004) Based on personal history, each person will bring an understanding of what the digital tool, software, or device is, how it should be used, and when its use is appropriate. Classroom practices with digital technology will th en be negotiated and encoded in the everyday life of the classroom (Triggs & John, 2004) These practices will constitute a community digital repertoire. The community repertoire wi class members will hold certain practices in common (Sutherland et al., 2004) Y et, even when

PAGE 52

39 individuals hold practices in common, it cannot be construed that they will agree on what the practices mean or how they should be conducted (Gutierrez, 2002) In the ethn technologies, I observed classrooms to see how digital classrooms were used, interviewed students and teachers to hear about their digital repertoires and the meanings they gave to digital equipment, and participated in classrooms to understand how a classroom community digital repertoire developed through transactions among students, teachers, and digital tools. Grounding in Literature As part of my entry into the community of scholars w ho research technology integration, I grounded myself in the literature related to my research interest. The literature most central to my inquiry comes from four primary areas: Technology integration: What do we currently know about how and when elementar y teachers and students use digital technologies in the classroom? How has technology integration been researched and what information is still missing? Out of school use of technology: Digital technologies are not confined to school use. What do we know a bout how elementary teachers and students use digital devices outside of school? What is the relationship between out of school and in school use? Digital divide: What do we know about how sociocultural practices, economic status, and even geographic loca technologies? School contexts: Schools are place bound and reflect their communities. What do we know about schools in town and rural communities? How does community context impact how te achers and students use digital technologies in classrooms?

PAGE 53

40 Technology Integration Literature Much research and discussion in the education world has centered on the integration of technologies in schools. In the past, the word technology was often used as a synonym for computers (Davies, 2011; Okojie et al., 2005) but the term has evolved to mean computer based or digital technologies which can include software, internet tools, handheld devices, and other advances in electronics (Bebell et al., 2004) In the cur rent research inquiry, the term technology is used in its broadest sense. The education world expected computers to transform classroom instruction (Cuban, 1986; Sutherland et al., 2004) and from the beginning (Sheingold, Kane, Endreweit, & Billings, 1981, p. 104) However, Cuban (1986) cautioned against optimi stic predictions that computers would transform education. In previous decades, new technologies including radios, film, videos, and televisions, had been slow to infiltrate classrooms because they did not fit easily into the structures of schools and the requirements of curriculum. The tools that teachers have added to their repertoire over time (e.g., chalkboard and textbooks) have been simple, durable, flexible, and responsive to teacher defined problems in meeting the demands of daily instruction (Cuban, 1986, p. 58) When innovations did infiltrate classrooms, they were typically used in ways that reinforced in place practices for instruction (i.e., student tutoring and fact drills) and administration (i.e., taking attendance, preparing and scoring tests, and recording grades). As Cuban suggested and administrative tasks may succeed, since these limited uses respond to teacher defined problems. Such solutions help teachers to cope with classroom issues ( 1986, p. 81)

PAGE 54

41 Cuban also anticipated that should teacher and student use of computers triple, the amount of time spent using computers would still disappoint education leaders because it would represent such a small slice of in structional time. Current quantitative research. Thirty years later, teachers rarely use digital technologies in classrooms in what researchers consider appropriate and effective ways to improve learning (Buckenmeyer, 2010; Ertmer et al., 2012; Inan, Lowther, Ross, & Strahl, 2010; Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross, & Specht, 2008; Pittman & Gaines, 2015; van Broekhuizen, 2016) Common teacher uses of technology consist of completing administrative tasks, increasing personal productivity, and communicating with parents and staff (Atsoglou & Jimoyiannis, 2012; Franklin, 2005; A. Howley, Wood, & Hough, 2011; Shapley et al., 2010; Shin, 2015) Students use computers to gather information from the internet or use productivity software (Bebell et al., 2004; Davies & West, 2014; Franklin, 2005) and these student uses of (Davies & West, 2014) Education researchers place low value on the common ways teachers and students use technologies in sch ools. Higher value is placed on students using technology tools in collaborative groups to create or transform learning tasks (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009) Yet, as Harris et al. (2009) pointed out, teachers incorporate technologies i n their classrooms based on the support and training they received, most of which have not promoted innovation. The research reports on technology integration are primarily drawn from large scale reports. Although survey self reports of practice have a high degree of correlation with observation reports (Desimone, 2009) survey questions are rarely fine grained enough to capture nuances of technolog y use. Surveys may collect data about the frequency of use or administrative versus instructional use, but rich,

PAGE 55

42 contextual understandings of how individual teachers plan for or use technology with students cannot be gleaned from the survey data (Bebel l et al., 2004) In my experiences with teachers, those who had strong foundations in pedagogy could transform seemingly low level tasks with productivity software or general websites into challenging and creative activities re quiring the same tools. For instance, first graders could look at a dragonfly website to see pretty pictures or could use the website photo gallery to hone observation skills, supplement information gleaned from reading, and develop a preliminary understan dragonfly photos to build science knowledge represents different levels of learning. On a survey that asks whether students gather information from websites, both teach ers could answer yes. The difference in how information gathering is implemented would be lost, as would the problem solving skills. Surveys have also been u sed to investigate the barriers that prevent wholesale adoption of technology. Ertmer (1999) ide ntified external (first order) and internal (second order) barriers to effective integration. Typically, first order barriers could be described as the lack of resources: equipment, support, training, and time. In more recent years, access to technology eq uipment and networks has improved (Mueller et al., 2008; Ruggiero & Mong, 2015) but issues of insuffic ient technical support, lack of training on how to integrate technology, and scarcity of time for planning integrated lessons remain (Lu & Overbaugh, 2009; Pittman & Gaines, 2015) T eachers (Hsu, 2016) and restricted curriculum (Ruggiero & Mong, 2015) as additional external barriers.

PAGE 56

43 Second order, or internal, about teaching, pedagogical knowledge, and management skills (Ertmer, 1999) Teachers who lack confidence about their technology skills or their ability to troubleshoot technical problems have shown less willingness to try integrated lessons (E. Wood, Mueller, Willoughby, Specht, & DeYoung, 2005) Teachers comfortable with technology or having positive computer experiences are more likely to use technology in the c lassroom 2004; Rakes, Fields, & Cox, 2006; E. Wood et al., 2005) When teachers do not believe the use of technology is pedagogically effective (Coleman, Gibson, Cotten, Howell Moroney, & Stringer, 2016; C. Kim et al., 2013) or have a weak understanding of how to combine technology with sound pedagogy (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) they avoid using computers instructionally. Integration barriers can be idiosyncratic or subtle. When I modeled teaching in a computer lab for primary teachers, I demonstrated how to adjust a task on the fly for children who needed more or less challenge. During our post class debrief, I realized teachers had been watching my student management skills, not instructional practices T heir barrier had been the difficu lty of re planning, no one had identified student management as a barrier; in debrief, all mentioned my management strategies helped them over a hurdle. To learn about their internal barrier s I needed to be on site and in sight. Understanding the barriers teachers identify through surveys can help technology departments strategize for equipment procurement, training programs, and school level support. But a survey cannot replace the experie nce of being present when a barrier presents itself. In my ethnographic study, I tried to remain aware of challenges, or barriers, that could limit teacher s or use s of technology.

PAGE 57

44 Observational and ethnographic studies. Some mixed methods studies have included 1 2 observations of a few classrooms to confirm large scale survey findings (Coleman et al., 2016; Hsu, 2016; C. Kim et al., 2013) Other investigations have included observations of individual teachers or small groups of teachers for evaluating the effectiveness of introducing a specific district or grant funded digital tool (i.e., interactive whiteboa rd, clickers, tablets) in the classroom (Beau champ, 2004; Ciampa & Gallagher, 2013; Hatten, 2012; Murcia, 2014; Shapley et al., 2010; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002) When researchers have provided professional development, they have often assessed the impact of the trainings through classroom observations (C. Kim et al., 2013; S. H. Liu, 2012; Orlando, 2014; Polly, 2011, 2014; Polly & Hannafin, 2011) The purposes of observations influence what is reported. In the research cited changes in integration practices, not the everyday status quo. Few researchers have spent time in classrooms observing technology use with the purpose of reporting on everyday uses. Ottenbreit Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, and Ertmer (2010) conducted one day observations of eight K 12 teachers who had won awards for their technology integration practices. Most of the data for the inquiry into technology practices of award winning teachers came from teacher interviews and electronic portfolio content analysis. Ottenbreit Leftwich et a l. (2010) found the teachers generally had student centered practices. The research participants had similar profiles to the first grade teacher at my school whose students investigated dragonflies on a website : T he participants evinced strong pe dagogical skills and could see technology as a tool to promote student centered teaching. As part of a large scale, multi national technology integration study, AdvancED directed a team of researchers to conduct over 140,000 class room observations of 20 minutes (van

PAGE 58

45 Broekhuizen, 2016) The goal of the project was to gain insight to the frequency of technology use across classrooms through exam ining a slice of time. Although the observations were too short to capture the essence of any particular classroom, the sheer volume of cases makes the research project unusual in its breadth. Short term observations serve an appropriate purpose when used to supplement other data; however, like large datasets, projects with limited time in classrooms provide only snapshots of technology practices. For an in depth understanding of how technology is used in classrooms, ethnographic studies are essential. Bec ause teachers struggled in the early 2000s to integrate technology (Becker & Ravitz, 2001; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001) educational ethnographers in the time period studied teachers who could model purposeful integration (Angers & Machtmes, 2005) Dias (2001) recruited four elementa ry teachers with reputations for integrating technology in their classrooms even though each teacher had no more than five computers in the classroom and access to computer labs only once every six days. Each teacher was observed four times on days when th e teachers were implementing technology based lessons. Dias also collected data from interviews and artifacts such as lesson plans and webpages. The technology integration practices in the four classrooms included the use of multidisciplinary and problem b ased units, purposeful planning for using technology tools when it aligned with instructional objectives, collaboration, and the provision of scaffolds for technology skills and academic objectives Banister (2005) Tech nology Teacher of the Year. The observational study had two purposes: to record and Full day observations occurred once or twice a week for two months. Based o n the findings, Banister described exemplary technology purposeful risk takers who

PAGE 59

46 dedicate much of their own time and resources to create technology rich classroom (Banister, 2005, p. 37 bold print in original) An ethnography of three middle school science teachers in different schools within a district also highlighted th e integration practices of exemplary technology teachers (Angers & Machtm es, 2005) In a district with a strong focus on technology, the three teachers had obtained grants for technology based projects. The first author observed the three classrooms in three rounds of visits for a total of 25 days of observation and interviews. Conclusions drawn from (2005) statement in the previous paragraph: teachers were self taught risk takers who invested time and resources into procuring equipment and financial support for supporting a technol ogy rich environment where students could use digital technologies as tools for learning. When exemplary technology using teachers are the focus of a research study, the results should show strong, positive models of integration. The previous three studie s all took place in the early 2000s before digital equipment became readily available in schools (Becker & Ravitz, 2001) The studies also highlighted exemplary technology using teachers, perhaps for the purpose of demonstrating the potential of technology for enhancing classroom instruction. The following study was published 14 years later. Tsai (2015) purposively chose a veteran junior high (grades 7 & 9) science teacher with was equipped with a projector and screen but no computers, so the teacher supplied her own laptop or borrowed a school computer. While the teacher had access to a room with an interactive whiteboard, she considered the technology too difficult to manage. The author observed four lessons over the course of four months. All uses of technology were for

PAGE 60

47 instructional purposes: the use of anim ations in slideshows to demonstrate abstract concepts. Through four observations and five interviews, the researcher concluded the teacher had strong pedagogical skills that enabled her to incorporate technology wisely despite inadequate access to technolo gy devices. Even though technology access and knowledge ha ve increased significantly since the early 2000s, few ethnographers have documented what the increase means in regular classrooms. (2015) four observations of a veteran junior high science teacher took place in Taiwan where the expectations for teachers may differ from U.S expectations. Still, the study indicated veteran teachers may be willing to integrate technology into lessons, but only when they perceive I conducted more than 200 hours of observations in each of two elementary schools, which represents a significant investment of time. My study covered a full school year, with three rounds of data collection in each school. The length of time and iterative rounds of observations provided a well rounded collection of data. Out of School Use of Technologies data exploring frequencies of use and student reports about their attitudes and daily practices (Bebell et al., 2004) Not as much work has focused on technology wil l be used in the classroom (Miranda & Russell, 2011; Rakes et al., 2006) Tea h ome and s chool u se of c omputers A hidden assumption in much of the

PAGE 61

48 professionals and not as adults in a technology rich world. In fact, when research lite rature their professional identities (Day, Kington, Stobart, & Sammons, 2006) Gene rally, references in planning, locating resources, communicating, and productivity efficiency (Atsoglou & Jimoyiannis, 2012; Franklin, 2005; Shapley et al., 2010; Shin, 2015) In a contrary finding, Wood et al. (2005) reported more than 90% of 54 teachers surveyed not only used computers at home for personal and professional tasks, but also used computers more often for personal, rather than professional, tasks. The teachers I mentored in 19 99 2005 had little technology at home. Most did not have internet or home computers. The world has changed. Based on 2014 data from research surveys, 90% of Americans with college degrees had internet access at home and 68% of the US population owned smart phones (Anderson, 2015) When more than 2,000 Advanced Placement and National Writing Project teachers were surveyed on their home and school uses of digital technologies (Purcell et al., 2013) teachers reported owning mult iple digital devices, such as e readers, cell phones, and tablets. Teachers were also significantly more likely than other adults to upload or download video, watch videos and TV shows online, and create online content. Teachers have identified self teach ing and informal learning through colleagu es, friends and family as the most common and preferred way s to learn computer skills (Granger, Morbey, Lotherington, Owston, & Wideman, 2002) Ang ers and Machtmes (2005) teachers claim that they learn by personal experience at (p. 775)

PAGE 62

49 Graham (2008) collected digital histories from 23 young primary teachers (ages 25 34) who had grown up with access to digital tools. About half the teachers started their technology journeys outside of school, whether through collaborative activities such as games and chat rooms or through self exploration. The remaining teachers learned their first skills through school experiences and subsequently built their skills in other environments. of school uses of technology because of my per became commonplace. As they matured and entered the teaching field, they were developing their digital repertoires, which would influence how they used technology in th e classroom. It is useful to learn how their digital repertoires developed, how they are using technologies now, and how their out of school uses align with classroom practices. As part of this ethnographic study, I conducted a technology inventory intervi ew with the teachers to learn about their digital repertoires and current practices. h ome and s chool u se of t echnologies Teachers often have little information (Grant, 2011; Labbo, Place, & Soares, 2010; Sutherland et al., 2004) Lacking such knowledge, teachers may not be aware of how home practices align with or could enrich classroom practices. Students have reported learning technical skills from peers, parents and family members ; observations of others ; and self explorations (Barron, 2010; Barron, Martin, Takeuchi, & Fithian, 2009; Bulfin & North, 2007; Gronn, Scott, Edwards, & Henderson, 2014; Hoffman & Vance, 2005; Kent & Facer, 2004; Plowman, McPake, & Stephen, 2008) Also, there is permeability between home and school practices (Bulfin & North, 2007) More knowledgeable school peers introduce

PAGE 63

50 children to new skills and new technologies which they then use at home (Barron et al., 2009; Kent & Facer, 2004) By 2014, 84% of the U.S. population had internet access (Meeker, 2015) With access outside the school walls, children can gain technology experience at home, school, and in the community ( Hsi, 2007) learning experiences connect with school technology practices (Sutherland et al., 2004) Kent and Facer (2004) survey of more than 3,200 total students in 2001 hool uses of technology were not completely separate as had been posited by other researchers, since activities, such as writing, games, and email, were common at both school and home. One major difference between home and school computer use, though, was in social connectivity. At home, the children used texts and messaging to connect with social peers; in school, students reported practices of in person cooperation and collaboration involving computers for group work. As technologies have proliferated, c hildren have created repertoires of practices (Hsi, 2007) own, synthesize, and develop digital media artefacts [sic] communication messages, or other (Hsi, 2007, p. 1513) These same ski lls have currency in educational settings, although the practices may not look the same at school. Additionally, schools often address digital literacy skills such as online safety, efficient information location skills, and ethical behaviors (Bulfin & North, 2007) that benefit children when they are online at home. Co ntrary to the popular belief that all children are uniformly sophisticated digital and driven by highly contextualized purposes (Barron, Walter, Martin, & Schatz, 2010; Bennett

PAGE 64

51 & Maton, 2010; ECDL Foundation, 2014) Some computer uses seem ubiquitous across students and settings, such as word processing, designing presentations, and accessing the internet for information gathering. However, even if the skills sets are the same, the ways c hildren engage in the tasks and their purposes for using the skills may be significantly different from one setting to another (Hsi, 2007) Additionally, many students engage in tasks related to specialized interests (Barron, 2006, 2010, Barron et al., 2009, 2010) has often highlighted out of school skills gained t hrough formal or informal opportunities accessed from home. For instance, a 13 year old student described her interest in and knowledge of programming, digital art production, and web design as the outcome of having friends who were interested in computers (Barron, 2010) Eight middle school students engaged in widely differentiated an d creative technology mediated tasks at home with parental support (Barron et al., 2009) of school technology use centers on children over the age of 12 (Horst, Herr Stephenson, & Robinson, 2010) Although some researchers have looked for parallels between home and school use (Gronn et a l., 2014; Kent & Facer, 2004) none of the research studies I found addressed the ethnographic study I conducted, I i ntentionally interviewed elementary teachers and their students to learn about their home uses of digital technologies The interviews enabled me to triangulate home use with school use. Since I was interested in how home use might influence school use and vice versa, the interviews provided rich data for comparison. Digital Divide digital inequity among students (Barron et al., 2009) which then affects the robustness of

PAGE 65

52 individual digital repertoires. Because this research study include s schools with low income families and investigate s home technologies, the question of a digital divide is salient. Most students hone their technology skills at home, not at school (Neuman & Celano, 2012) Yet, children in low income areas often lack home computers and /or internet access (Judge, Puckett, & Bell, 2006) in part because their families are more likely to use mobile technologies as their primary internet devices (Katz & Gonzalez, 2016; Yardi & Bruckman, 2012) Twenty four percent of rural families do not have home internet access (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016) When families lack home computers and internet access, children have to manage their techno logy based learning in other ways (Celano & Neuman, 2010; Horst et al., 2010) This represents a significant opportunity cost in terms of time and space (Hollingworth, Mansaray, Allen, & Rose, 2011) For instance, students may need to use their lunch breaks to complete assignments in the school library or visit public libraries in the evening or over the weekend. on task, children with limited access may be penalized for their limited participation (Hollingworth et al., 2011) (Hollingworth et al., 2011, p. 352) of exploring, learning new tasks, and taking risks with technology, which would increase their digital repertoires. Instead, these students mus t remain task focused in the limited time they have to use computers or the internet. Their technology skills lag behind, which deepens the digital divide (Neuman & Celano, 2012; Shelby Caffey, bda, & Jenkins, 2014) and the digital capital students carry in their digital repertoires. Socio economic f actors Most discussions of the digital divide concentrate on socio economic causes. Clark, Demont Heinrich and Webber (2005) explored the technology beliefs

PAGE 66

53 (Clark et al., 2005, p. 409) The researchers sorted the access continuum economically with three levels described as lower income, middle income, and upper income. All parents agreed computer competence would be income brackets assumed computer competence would lead to higher paying jobs. Parents with less income had mixed responses; the y considered computer skills important, but not necessarily essential. When parents did not use computers in their jobs, they did not imagine computers using jo b particular, because of the perception computers were mostly entertainment (Clark et al., 2 005) (Yardi & Bruckman, 2012) Differences in how parents perceived computers influenced the level of access their children had to technology. Parents with the fewest job related opportunities to use computers co mputer access or through restrictive family rules (Clark et al., 2005) The level of access to begin in the home (Grant, 2011) Parental choices to limit children computer competence (Clark et al., 2005) In a four year longitudinal study of more than 8,000 early elementary student s, grouped by attendance at high or low poverty schools, Judge, Puckett, and Bell (2006) found students at

PAGE 67

54 high poverty schools had more access to school computers than students from wealthier areas. The opposite was true about access to home computers. Almost all students in upper income households had home computers (97%); less than half of students in low in come households had home computers (45%). Judge et al. (2006) also found greater achievement in reading and math was rel ated to home computer access, indicating economically disadvantaged students who lacked home computer access were also academically disadvantaged. Another finding in the Judge et al. study was that the use of reading and mathematics software, which is ofte n drill and skill software, had a negative correlation with academic achievement and low income students were far more likely than high income students to use computers for reading and mathematics software. Their peers in more affluent schools more often used computers for internet functions, which correlated to greater academic achievement (Judge et al., 2006) The socio economic levels of schools impact the level of technology use by teachers as well. Reinhart, Thomas, and Toriskie (2011) technology for instruction across school economic factors. The children in lower socio economic situations had more technology available to t hem, and the children in higher socio economic situations had access to additional personnel in the role of technology facilitators. Students in schools in lower economic neighborhoods had significantly fewer opportunities to use technology for activities that required higher order thinking than their peers in more affluent neighborhoods. The authors suggested a link exists between higher level thinking and the presence of technology facilitators, since the presence or lack of a technology facilitator mirro red the results on higher level thinking. The relative absence of technology facilitators and higher order thinking opportunities in lower economic schools resulted in a second order digital divide among students (Reinhart et al., 2011)

PAGE 68

55 Geographic f actors Education researchers have established the existence of a digital divide and typ ically define the divide in terms of access to technologies, support, and opportunities to use technologies (Goh & Kale, 2015) Most digital divide research, shown in the previous paragraphs, has examined differences in technology opportunity that is based on race and socio econom ic factors (Clark et al., 2005; Hollingw orth et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2006; Yardi & Bruckman, 2012) Few, if any, inquiries on technology integration or home school technology connections have con sidered geographic effects on digital technology use. Yet, geography can play a significant role in learning. Since the proposed project will be conducted in towns and rural areas, understanding geographic, in addition to socio economic, effects on the dig ital divide bears relevance. Rural residents (located in communities of less than 2, 500) are less likely to adopt internet broadband than any other demographic (LaRose, Gregg, Strover, Straubhaar, & Carpenter, 2007) Part, but not all, of the gap may be explained by the lack of broadband providers, the high monthly cost, and low education rates among residents. Agarwal, Animesh, and Prasad (2009) posited internet use is a social phenomenon governed by interactions within economics play a role in whether families have internet, non internet users are clustered regionally in ways not fully explained by socio economic factors (Agarwal et al., 2009; LaRose et al., 2007) Much in the same way computer computers (Goolsbee & Klenow, 2002) individuals spatially located in the proximity of people with a propensity to go online will also end up going online. Those who are surrounded by people who choose not to go online will be less likely to do so (Agarwal et al., 2009, p. 291)

PAGE 69

56 Non online users may depend on their social networks (friends and family) to help them figure out the processes of purchasing onlin e services and setting up home networks. However, peer effects may also result from newspaper articles about internet use, incidental observation of internet users, or casual interactions with acquaintances at places such as local stores, churches, or comm unity events (Agarwal et al., 2009) Casual acquaintances can recommend equipment provide reasons for using the internet, and mention websit es worth visiting. Peer effects may be equated with social communities. Children gain digital skills through their social, as well as familial, associations (Barron, 2010; Barron et al., 2009; Hsi, 2007; Poole, 2017) If social communities are not using technologies, children have fewer opportunities to contribute to their digital repertoires. The Contexts of Town and Rural Schools The US Census Bureau, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Department of (USDA/ERS), Departme nt of Education (DOE), and the Frontier and Remote (FAR) zip code areas all classify geography of place in terms of proximity to densely populated urban centers (Ayers, 2011; NASEM, 2016) For the Census Bureau, the practice of classifying census tracts in terms of distance from an urban center has been in place since 1910 which has normalized the practice of defining rural from an urban perspective (Woods, 2015) Other federal agencies have adopted the same or similar definitions (NASEM 2016) The National Center for Educa tion Statistics (NCES ; nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp ) assigns urban centric locale codes to all schools The locale codes identify four major place types: City Suburb, Town, and Rural. Each of the place types is then subdivided further. City and Suburb schools are distinguished by the size of the urban area: Large, Mid size, or Small.

PAGE 70

57 Town and Rural schools are subdivided by their proximi ty to urban centers: Fringe, Distant, or Remote. The schools in this ethnographic study were classified as Town, Remote and Rural, Fringe. Inequities in t own and r ural e ducation r esearch Little current educational research has been published about towns, their characteristics, and their schools. None of the educational literature I found identified the school(s) under inquiry as town schools. Pennington, Horn, & Berrong, (Pennington, Horn, & Berrong, 2009) (in title) special education services, but the article itself referred to schools in rural counties and lacked any reference to towns. T own schools may have been subsumed under the category of rural. Certainly, the line between rural and town is narrow. Carl one, Kimmel, and Tschida (2010) reported on a new STEM elementary school in North Carolina. Strictly speaking, the the 2,500 figure set by NCES to classify as a town). Yet, the description of t he 2 block downtown area, the businesses, and local community college, seemed more in keeping with a small town rather than a widely dispersed rural community. Although more than one third of students in the U.S. are considered rural (Geverdt, 2015) less than 6% of education research has investigated rural schools (Hardr et al., 2009) Rural education research h (Sherwood, 2001, p. 1) (Sherwood, 2001, p. 1) Arnold at al. (2005) apparent lack of high quality rural research, limited funding for rural education research, and inconsistent definitions of 'rural'" (2005, p. 2)

PAGE 71

58 C. B. Howley et al. (2005) proposed more contextualized understandings of rural education through a variety of quantitative and qualitative research studies: Ru ral education research simply must ask what sort of schooling rural kids are getting, why they are getting it, who benefits and who gets injured in the process, and by what mechanisms (2005, p. 3, italics in original) Additionally, many researchers fail to describe rural school contexts with enough detail to clarify the locale (Hawley et al., 2 016; Koziol et al., 2015) as several of the following research studies show. Rural studies may refer to rural areas and/or towns, or rural contexts may be combined with other school types in the research pro cess. When researchers fail to clarify what is meant by rural, readers have difficulty determining whether the results can be generalized Additionally, some rural education research seems to be rural as a matter of convenience, not as an intentional study of rural ness (C. B. Howley, Howley, & Yahn, 2014) Technology in r ural s chools r esearch A small body of educational research projects has reported on technology in rural settings. When st udies identify the district, rather than schools, as rural, the study may not be about rural schools. Rural districts have a majority of rural schools, but they may also have schools with town, suburb, or even urban classifications (Geverdt, 2015) Of four articles identified as rural technology investigations, only two studies were clearly about rural ness. Understanding what is already known about rural schools and technology use was important for positioning my ethnographic study in the literature. Beach and Webster (2015) explored the barriers rural, low income districts face in equipping schools with technology. Through the use of interviews, classroom observations, and examinations of policies and procedures, the researchers found the primary barriers were insufficient equipment, personnel, and funding. These barriers have been identified in research at

PAGE 72

59 non rural schools as well and have remained constant over the years (Buabeng Andoh, 201 2; Ertmer, 1999; Hsu, 2016; E. Wood et al., 2005) A study of middle school students in 7 th and 9 th grades explicitly identified the middle schools participating in the study as Rural, Distant and Rural, Remote as defined by the NCES database (Wake, 2011) Students from two high poverty rural schoo ls participated in a digital (Wake, 2011, p. 28) Students worked in collaborative groups, particularly since each classroom had only one internet connected teacher computer. The eighteen stories enabled students to explore their i dentities as teens in a rural context. Rural ness was central to the research investigation. In addition to research that had a rural only focus, some studies have taken a comparative approach to understanding the difference in technology uses in rural, s uburban, and/or urban schools. I included this literature to illustrate how researchers view rural settings. Technology in comparative school research. One comparative study in Virginia s that promote or hinder the use of instructional technology (Lu & Overbaugh, 2009) One hundred seventy sev en teachers from suburban, urban, and rural schools responded to surveys and 10% were then interviewed. Teachers identified time constraints and technical problems as the most serious concerns. Suburban teachers reported more favorable environments on all factors, while both rural and urban teachers indicated resolving technical problems took significantly longer. Additionally, urban teachers lacked integration support while rural teachers lagged most in access to equipment. The authors did not describe how they determined whether school s were

PAGE 73

60 urban, suburban, or rural. The lack of access to equipment reported by the rural teachers aligns with the later findings of the Beach and Webster (2015) investigation in rural settings. A Howley Wood, and Hough (2011) practices in comparison to non rural teachers. Using a survey, with responses from more than 500 third grade teachers, the researchers determined rural teachers showed more positive attitudes toward technology use than their non rural peers. Rural teachers indicated limited access to instructional technology and inadequate training to prepare them to use technology effect ively hampered the level of integration in their classrooms. The A. Howley et al. (2011) findings echoed the Lu and Overbaugh (2009) research and were reaffirmed in the Beach and Webster (2015) study. A study of rural and urban teachers in West Virginia (Goh & Kale, 2015) revealed urban (which included suburban) teachers had significantl y more access to technologies at school than technologies, urban teachers used technology with students more often than rural teachers. The limitations of equipment and participation in technology based learning (Goh & Kale, 2015) The researchers did not define how they identified schools as rural or urban. In a study of urban, suburban, and rural elementary schools in Ohio, S. H. Kim and Bagaka (2005) did not find significant differences in access to school computers based on school locale, although suburban students had greater access to computers at home. When suburban students lacked home computers, they had more opportunities to use productivity software and tools in school than urban or rural peers. Suburban schools also had more techn o logy support,

PAGE 74

61 and the teachers demonstrated more positive technology attitudes and expertise, which resulted in more integration practices at suburban schools While S. H. Kim and Bagaka (2005) indicated the study was of suburban, urban, and rural schools, only suburb schools were treated as a single category. Rural and urban schoo ls were combined into one category because the authors assumed, despite the lack of economic data, students in both the rural and urban schools were disadvantaged populations have historically reported lower fr ee and reduced lunch rates than non rural schools (A. Howley et al., 2011) It is possible the rural students in the Northeast Ohio sample were not as econom ically disadvantaged as the urban students. The perspective that rural schools are urban like is not uncommon as Redding and Walberg (2012) pointed out: Education literature on rural schools often assumes that rural schools are remotely located, serving communities with high poverty, declining populations, and limited economic opportunity. Of course, many rural schools are so situated, but some are located in geographic proximity to larger communities, and some may serve students from established agricultural families of substantial means and with a significant portion of adults with college educations (p. 9) Interestingly, S. H. Kim and Bagaka (2005) did report 59% of the urban students in the sample were from minority groups wh ile less than 1% of the rural students came from minority backgrounds. By choosing to treat rural and urban students as a similar demographic, S. H. Kim and Bagaka missed an opportunity to understand the differences in technology use based on geog raphic location. Their findings we re also misleading because of the lack of distinction between urban and rural students. Literature on technology in rural education, and even on rural education as a whole, is scarce. Town schools, in particular, seem to be practically invisible in the education and

PAGE 75

62 technology integration literature. Concentrating my ethnographic study on technology integration in rural and town schools addresses a gap in current literature. Summary of the Literature The purpose of this c hapter was to build a foundation for the ethnographic study of s use of digital technologies in town and rural schools. A keystone to the inquiry wa s the concept of digital repertoires, which are the sum of knowledge, skills, aptitude s, beliefs, and attitudes about digital technologies. Digital repertoires are individually constructed across life experiences. Yet, in any social community, such as a classroom, a collective digital repertoire develops as group members negotiate the use o f digital technologies as a social practice. The concept of digital repertoires arises from four inter related theoretical lenses that shaped my thinking about how teachers and students build digital repertoires: Funds of Knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) Funds of Identity (Esteban Guitart, 2012) repertoires of practice (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) and transactional theory (Rosenblatt, 1988) At first my interest was simply how teachers integrate digital technologies in their classrooms. Reviewing the technology integration literature exposed the lack of research conducted ethnogra phically in classrooms. Few researchers have spent extensive time in classrooms to learn how students and teachers use technology in the everyday activities in elementary classrooms. My interest in learning about technology integration, particularly at the elementary level and through an ethnographic perspective, could address the gap. The lenses of Funds of Knowledge literature (N. Gonzlez et al., 2005; Moll, 2009; Moll et al., 1992; Moll, Soto Santiago, & Schwartz, 2013; Subero et al., 2015; Vlez Ibez & Greenberg, 2005 ) and Funds of Identity literature (Esteban Guitart & Moll, 2014; Moll &

PAGE 76

63 Esteban Guitart, 2014; Poole, 2017) influence on technology practices in schools. Most of the literature about out of school uses of technology focused on middle school students (Barron, 2006, 2010; Barron et al., 2009; Horst et al., 2010) and not on teachers or elementary students. My ethnographic design of investigating the out of school technology practices of elementary students and teachers could enhance the literature on how digital technologies are used outside of school walls. My decision to choose non urban schools with at least 40% of students eligible for subsidized lunch prices and a diverse student body required me to research how socioeconomics digital divide (Agarwal et al., 2009; Council of Economic Advisers, 2015; S. H. Kim & Bagaka, 2005; Reinhart et al., 2011; Yardi & Bruckman, 2012) clearly indicated the digital divide impacted not only c through surveys, and little has been known about how the divide affected individual children An interrogate the concept of a digital divide. The final body of literature covered in the chapter related to school contexts, particularly town and rural areas. Rur al research is under represented in educational research (Hardr et al., 2009; C. B. Howley et al., 2005) and studies specific to town schools are rare or nonexistent. Ethnographers benefit when they understand the contexts of the areas under study. One school included in my designed ethnographic study was classified as a Town, Distant school. Town schools have been absent from research reports, and little has been written about the

PAGE 77

64 characteristics of towns. Yet, it is important to know as much as possible to place the town school in context. The other school in the research design was a rural school on the fringe of a metropolitan area. Rural research is more common than town research. However, rural areas are highly varied, so providing a clear description of a rural context is essential for disseminating informatio n about rural culture. Researchers do not always make rural descriptors clear enough for readers to understand the research context (Hawley et al., 2016; Koziol et al., 2015) Rural schools, too, are significantly different from one another. The rural education literature makes clear the necessity of fully describing the rural school context in any reports. Several quantitative studies of technology in rural schools exist, but few, if any, ethnographic studies of rural or town school technology integration have been published. The literature review reveal ed gaps my ethnographic research study attempted to address: A lack of ethnographic studies on technology integration in e lementary classrooms; of school use of digital technologies; A lack of information about how the digital divide affects elementary students; and A lack of educational research studies, particularly ethnographic research, on town and rural schools. In the next chapter, I present the ethnographic research design and methods for data collection and analysis.

PAGE 78

65 CHAPTER III STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS In the research study, I sought to understand the experiences of teachers and elementary students as they used digital technologies in their classrooms and personal lives. Since, (Hatch, 2002, p. 7) I focused my research attention on the experiences, practices, conversations, and artifacts produced by or about participant s concerning the use of digital technology within school and out of school technology practices. Using a multi sited ethnographic perspective afforded a holistic picture of technolog y use in classrooms (Jacob, 1998) Purpose of the Study Currently, educational research appears to lack a holistic underst anding of how teachers and students employ, learn from, and engage with digital technologies in elementary classrooms. Statistical studies indicate little technology is used in classrooms either by teachers or students (Atsoglou & Jimoyiannis, 2012; Franklin, 2005; Shapley et al., 2010; Shin, 2015) but the studies d id not reve toward and beliefs about using technologies in classrooms, often through quantitative data (Ertmer, 1999, 2005; Lu & Overbaugh, 2009; Tondeur, Hermans, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008) as a potential cause for the under use of technology. Teachers teachers we re evaluated by researchers based on a constructivist teaching/learning paradigm; teachers reporting the most fre quent use of technology in classrooms we re generally considered to have more constructivist stances (Becker & Ravitz, 2001; Gilakjani, Leong, & Hairul, 2013)

PAGE 79

66 Reports on interventional professional development for teacher technology use have shown mixed results, with Orlando (2014) raising the suggestion that most professional development Orlando found it took a minimum of three years before changes in technology use based on pro Similar to Orlando (2014) in my own practic e, I found many elementary teachers changed their technology practices slowly. For seven years I provided professional development training for the staff of an elementary school. I also co taught with each of the 22 classroom teachers in a computer lab at least once a week and provided additional in class support. I documented the change process in a book, I T s E lementary: Integrating T echnology in the P rimary G rades ( Hamilton, 2007) Except for one digital pioneer on staff, I saw little visible change in how the teachers used technologies for the first two to three years. By the sixth year, change was visible in almost all classrooms, although two teachers resisted making even minimal adjustments to their technology practices. What seems to be missing from the technology integration literature is an understanding of how teachers and students do use technology in the classroom and how the use of technology influences the teacher student dynamics. Through an ethnographic study of classrooms in two schools with similar profiles but in different locales, I tried to capture a holistic and evidence based picture of digital technology uses in everyday classroom experiences from the perspectives of the teachers and students. framed research questions to guide my initial observations and conversations in the classrooms. To understand current uses of technology, I needed to document which digital technologies were

PAGE 80

67 used and honored (or not honored) in classrooms. This would alert me to what counted as digital technologies for teachers and students. To explore how out of school uses of technology might with technologies outside of school. I also attended to teacher student and student student interactions around technologies. Other questions arose durin g the research study. Observations of how technologies were being used in classrooms revealed challenges and opportunities for both teachers and students. I improved or hindered instruction. Perhaps because my doctoral training has taken place in two universities with different paradigmatic approaches (constructivist and critical), I locate myself within a diverse mix of epistemological s tances and research traditions that blend the best parts of my previous research experiences. In prior research, most of which centered on children and classrooms, I have explored many research traditions: ethnography, narrative, case study, content analys is, quantitative surveys, autoethnography, grounded theory, oral history, discourse analysis, and mixed methods. I did not find a single research tradition my research home. Instead, I have allowed my questions to determine the research approaches and desi gns. Rationale The questions guiding the research design for this study asked how teachers and students in small towns and rural areas think about, discuss, and use digital technologies in their classrooms. Researchers have rarely spent time in classroom s observing how teachers and students create d shared understanding about the digital technology tools available in the

PAGE 81

68 classroom. By choosing to observe and participate in elementary classrooms where digital technologies we re available, I learned not only how the devices and tools were used, but also how teachers and students understood and experienced that use. I learned from observation and participation in the classroom what teachers and students knew about using digital technologies, who did and did not have access to the digital tools and devices, and how shared understanding conversations with students and teachers about the digital technologies they used at home and whether and how those technologies crossed the permeable boundaries of classroom walls. Getting to know classrooms in two schools with similar profiles in under researched locales highlighted issues of affordances both opportunities and constraints, in technology use. Educational research tends to spotlight schools in urban and suburban regions. Small town and rural schools have little visibility in the research literature, most teacher preparation programs, or even the national conversation about educa tion (Arnold et al., 2005) Time Anthropologists may spend a year or more involved in ethnographic study in a community (Hammersley, 2006) and that time represents only a moment in the history of the ty time. States set the minimum number of days and/or instructional hours schools must be in session annually. Elementary students average 5 6.5 hours a day in school for a total of about 900 hours per school year (Bush, Ryan, & Rose, 2011) Each school year, the classroom culture changes to reflect the current blend of students with the teacher and alterations to the school culture in general Because the classroom culture transforms with each new set of students, an educational researcher studying a classroom culture has a maximum of one school year for the inquiry.

PAGE 82

69 The question of how teachers and students in towns and rural areas use and understand their usage of digital technologies could not be answered through a few interviews or once a week visits. I spent at least 25 full days as a participant as observer in each school (more than 200 hou rs per school total) across the school year. I arrived before the school day began and as observer during instructional time. That means I often worked with students to assis t the teacher while I tried to mentally record what was happening in the classroom. In down times, I wrote copious notes about what I had done and seen. At lunch and recess, and as often as possible during planning times, I hung out with the teachers. At t he end of the school day, I stayed until the teachers left for home. Then, either at home or at a fast food restaurant, I typed my notes, adding detailed each s Research Design for Project The research project was designed to permit me to spend a significant portion of the 2016 2017 school year in two elementary schools within one state. The school populations had similar economic and ethnic profiles and were located in two distinctly different communities: town and rural. Although I originally designed the research project to i nclude a digital storytelling workshop at the conclusion of the school year, a number of factors made digital storytelling unfeasible, and that component of the research was abandoned. The research design for the investigation of classroom use of technol ogy was an ethnographic case study. Methods included observation and participation in three classrooms, interviews, and artifact analysis. Case study is appropriate when

PAGE 83

70 an in depth understanding of the case or a comparison (Creswell, 2007, p. 74) For the investigation reported her e the case was a bounded unit (Merriam, 1998) of digital technology use in the elementary classroom. Three cases were explored: one fifth sixth combination classroom in a rural school and two fourth grade classrooms in a town school. In both schools, the teachers taught all students in the grade leve l. The rural fifth sixth grade level teacher taught ~100 students, and the fourth grade teachers had ~ 5 5 students (numbers are rounded to the nearest 5). In both cases, observed classes were the oldest students in the schools. The investigation focused on one aspect of the classroom, the use of digital technology, through the everyday life and cultural practices of students and teachers in classrooms. The methods reflected a practical approach to gathering data, particularly the ethnographic tradition of c ollecting data through multiple sources and modalities (Atkinson, 2015) Figure 2 visually represents the flow of data collection activities for the inquiry. The plan called for three participation observation blocks of three weeks in each scho ol over the year. I aimed to spend three days per week as a participant as observer in the classrooms during each block. Outside of the classrooms, in the evenings and on weekends, I wrote fieldnotes, transcribed audio, and conducted preliminary analysis. Despite a proposed calendar for observations I found it imperative to be flexible. For instance, I had planned to begin in early October, but a delay in IRB approval pushed the start date to November. Because I was required by the second school district to complete data collection by May 1, I could not extend the data collection period. This collapsed the schedule to allow only one recuperation and analysis week between school visits.

PAGE 84

71 Figure 2 The flow chart of the research design was revised to reflect the actual implementation which differed from the original plan. Additionally, all three teachers had illnesses and personal days when I could not be in their classrooms. I was also required to leave the rural school classroom during teacher planning and state and district testing. I spent the June 2017 through March 2018 completing transcriptions, organizing the information, analyzing data, and writing the research report. Methodological Appr oaches to the Research I combined two methodological approaches in the design of the research: case study and educational ethnography Case s tudy d esign. Case study research designs are prevalent in educational research (Merriam, 1998) and used in multiple disciplines (Yin, 2011) Researchers choose case study

PAGE 85

72 (Merriam, 1998, pp. 28 29) and seek to understand a phenomenon in a real life context (Yin, 2011) Inquiries are not driven by hypotheses but rather are determined by wha t is happening within the boundaries of the case (Stake, 1978) Cases may be bound by time, space, activity, definition, or context (Creswell, 2009; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1995) For instance, in the study, the three cases of digital technology use were bound by space (elementary classrooms), time (2016 2017 school year), activity (students and teachers using digital techno logies), and context (town and rural schools). Case studies draw from numerous sources of evidence, such as direct observation, interviews, archival records, documents, participant observation, and artifacts (P. Baxter & Jack, 2 008; Yin, 2011) The result is a rich, complex, and voluminous collection of information that enables researchers to create highly contextualized understandings of the phenomenon of interest (P. Baxter & Jack, 2008) The sheer volume of information requires careful data organization and management (P. Baxter & Jack, 2008; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009) Case studies may be single or collective, intrinsic or instrumental, holistic or embedded, and based on one or multiple sites (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009) A single case examines only one example of the phenomenon under study: one person, one issue, one group. A single case may be particularly valuable when the researcher identifies an extreme or rare case, although some single cases examine typical cases. A collectiv e or multiple

PAGE 86

73 case study is conducted to explore differences between and within selected cases, which may be located at one site or across several sites. Collective cases are often considered more robust and reliable than single cases, but actually, th e go als of the research differ (Yin, 2009) Single case studies lead to understanding a unique or critical context; collective studies give insights through comparison across contexts (P. Baxt er & Jack, 2008) The ethnographic study described in this document was a collective case since the three elementary classrooms we re in different contexts (one rural, two town). Stake (1995) defined intrinsic case studies as situations where the particular situation holds interest. Instrumental case studies identify the issue or case as more important than a particular context. The inquiry qualifie d as instrumental, since the issue of technology use wa s of primary interest across the two locales. A holistic design focuses on the global nature of the case while an embedded design recognizes multiple units within the case. A holistic design focuses on an issue in a broad sweep of the context but remains located in the bounded system. Resea rch with an embedded design would include subunits of the site (P. Baxter & Jack, 2008) For instance, an embedded design might triangulate data from the primary focus classroom through a comparison with other classrooms within the same school. The study I conducted had a holistic design since I was seeking to understand the global phenomenon of digital technology use through the eyes, voices, and experiences of the students and teachers in three classrooms at two schools Finally, the inquiry was multiple sited. Of key importance in selection of the multiple sites was finding sites with comparable ethnicity and economic profiles located in different locales. The choice of sites with similar profiles permit ted the spotli ght to be put on the similarities and differences in digital technology use across sites (P. Baxter & Jack, 2008)

PAGE 87

74 Educational e thnographic p erspective The research project was designed from an educational ethnography perspective (Green & Bloome, 2004) to is, sights, sounds) of the location they inhabit, through the collecti on of detailed observations and interviews (Reeves, Kuper, & Hodges, 2008, p. 512) The inhabited locations for the proposed study we re three classrooms in two schools with similar profiles but located in different types of communities. Each cl assroom was its own cultural system (Green & Bloome, 2004; Spradley, 1980) The microcultures differ ed from one another, despite similarities in economic and ethnicity profiles (Erick son, 1986) The research design borrow ed from the ethnographic perspective, but it d id not meet the historical anthropological definition of ethnographic research as outlined by Hammersley (2006) Traditionally, anthropological ethnographers lived full time in a community of study for at least together, and m any researchers focus only on the work locale, which is essentially part time participant observation work. Hammersley acknowledged that much fieldwork lasts months, rather than years. Instead of holding researchers to a past model, Hammersley recommended remaining aware of challenges caused by short term studies or periodic visits to the field. Research based on shorter time periods may result in overlooked trends or changes (Hammersley, 2006) In the research inquiry, I held to a core practice of ethnography, which is that the researcher conducts first hand study of what people do and say in particular contexts (Atkinson, 2015; Hammersley, 2006; Jacob, 1998) in order to understand the local meanings of actions from (Erickson, 1986) As a fieldwork researcher, I sought to describe

PAGE 88

75 classroom activities from the points of view of the p articipants in the cultural system, rather than from my own standpoint (Erickson, 1984) The ethnographic perspective also draws from multiple sources of information: multiple voices, multiple methods for data collection, multiple modes of cultural expression (Atkinson, 2015) In the study I conducted the voices and actions of both teachers and students we re significant. The use and collection of participant observations, fieldnotes jottings, conversations, semi structured interviews, and artifacts was essential. I paid attention to digital technology use in action (Erickson, 1986) to gather a broad picture of how the use wa s shared, owned, and understood within the classroom culture. Through multiple modes, I developed a greater understanding of how the particular classroom cultures maintain themselves and adapt as circumstances change (Walford, 2009) I temporarily became part of two school sites, yet not fully a community member in any classroom (Metz, 1983) Research Setting and Participant s A purposive selection of multiple participants can deepen the understanding of the investigated experience (Polkinghorne, 2005) I se lected classrooms in two locales not only to deepen the understanding of technology use in classrooms, but also to show commonalities and making in locales often overlooked by educational researchers Research Setting The selection of research sites was driven by the instrumental and multi sited aspects of case study design. I chose to explore how teachers and students use digital technology in

PAGE 89

76 classrooms when school profiles we re similar but locati ons differ. I also wanted to highlight what has been a largely neglected area of research: schools in towns and rural communities. Selection criteria were based on state averages. The state website provided 2014 2015 State Ethnicity and Economically Disad vantaged average percentages. Because state ethnicity data for each of five groups (American Indian, Asian, Black, Hawaiian, and Biracial) were less than 5%, I opted to compare schools based on the two largest ethnic groups in the state (Hispanic, ~35% and Economically Disadvantaged data (~40% average) was based on Free and Reduced lunch eligibility percentages, the same criteria I used. I wanted schools near the state average in order to exclude schools in especially wealthy or poverty stricken areas. In my experience schools in wealthy or high poverty communities are more likely to be provided with outside resources to supplement their technology programs than schools in communities w ith average wealth/poverty. I queried the NCES database ( nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/ ) to extract all public elementary schools in the state. The NCES identifies schools through an urban centric classification system that measures proximity to an urban center based on urban centric codes consisting of four primary locales (city, suburb, town, and rural) each divided into three subcategories (large, medium and small for city and su burb; fringe, distant, and remote for town and rural) are used as labels for schools. For the purposes of this inquiry, subcategories were subsumed under the four primary locales. I downloaded information about all public elementary schools in the state f rom the NCES 2013 2014 database into Microsoft Excel. In my query, I included data fields for locale codes, ethnicity distributions, and eligibility for free and reduced lunches. Charter, magnet, and online schools were excluded because their funding strea ms and student selection processes generally

PAGE 90

77 differ from other public schools. The pared down list was then sorted into separate worksheets for each locale. within +/ 10% of the state average for Hispanic and White ethnicities and Free and Reduced Lunch eligibility. I sorted the lists based on the economic measure to trim the list to schools near the state average of ~40%. Then I visually scanned the sorted lists t o identify potential schools, two per locale. The first choice and back up schools are shown in Table 3 For purposes of confidentiality, all numbers have been rounded to the nearest five points. Table 3 Sites for the Research Study School Locale School Name District Locale No of Students % Free & Reduced Lunch % Hispanic % White State Averages 40% 35% 55% Town, remote Town School Elementary (TSE) Town, remote 295 45% 30% 65% Rural, fringe Rural Elementary Academy (REA) Suburb, large 276 45% 30% 65% Alternate School Possibilities Town, distant Alternate Town School Town, distant 320 45% 30% 70% Rural, fringe Alternate Rural School Town, distant 286 40% 30% 65% Obtaining access. In May 2016, I phoned the two first choice schools to ask the best ways to communicate with the principals about my research interest. In both cases, principals preferred introductory emails. My preliminary email with the principals of the first choice sc hools emphasized that the project was not yet approved. Both principals expressed eagerness to

PAGE 91

78 be included. In fact, one principal immediately identified two potential teachers. Both principals urged me to keep them informed of the process and offered to e xpedite approvals from their districts, if I needed help. In August, 2016, I again contacted the principals to inform them of the research plan and ask for their permission to conduct research in their schools. Each principal gave me an emailed letter of consent for their school to participate. That enabled me to then submit requests for approval from the district administration. Town School Elementary (TSE) was part of a small district where the superintendent made the final decisions concerning research in the district. The TSE principal expedited the process by forwarding my information and requesting a quick response. Rural Elementary Academy (REA) was part of a large school district with about 50 regular elementary schools, most of which were classif ied as Suburb, L arge. I worked with a district representative to file the appropriate paperwork, including adding detailed information about protecting the privacy of students. District a pproval included two conditions: 1. students, I could not start before October 1, 2016 and must end before May 1, 2017. 2. To protect student privacy, I could not attend meetings where discussion might include private information about students. When consent from both districts had been gran ted and the IRB documents had been submitted to the university research review board, I requested an opportunity to visit the schools and meet the principals and teachers. Originally, I had intended to narrow teacher selection to teachers who demonstrated moderate, rather than exemplary or reluctant, technology use. Such selection criteria presumed a

PAGE 92

79 pool of teachers would be eager to have me in their classes. In reality, teacher selection was controlled by which teachers were willing to participate. I did levels when I asked them to join the study. On the other hand, I was fortunate to have chosen schools where intermediate teachers were initiating one to one computing in their classrooms. Even if teachers had been reluctan t technology users in prior years, the implementation of a computer for every child in the grade level placed responsibility on the teachers to use computers regularly. The principal of Town School Elementary (TSE) invited me to attend a September staff development Friday so I could meet the teachers and identify a potential participant. During the morning, I met two fourth grade teachers who seemed positive about the project. Because they were in meetings all day, I emailed both teachers afterward to ask whether either would be interested in participating. Both teachers, who are friends as well as colleagues, suggested I alternate between them rather than choose only one teacher. Since both teachers taught all the grade level students, I would see the sam e students consistently across both classrooms. The principal of Rural Elementary Academy (REA) had sent my emails to two teachers in his school, and one expressed interest in the project. The interested teacher invited me to spend a day in her classroom i n late September. The teacher reiterated her interest, and we agreed I would make more definite plans with her as soon as I received final IRB approval. I submitted the IRB documents the first week of September. I tentatively planned to begin data collecti on in October at TSE. Unfortunately, approval took until the first week of November, 2016. I adjus ted the observation schedule to complete data collection before May 1.

PAGE 93

80 Participants At TSE, three TSE fourth grade teachers platooned for writing, math, an d science/social studies, so each teacher had all 5 5 fourth graders every day. I worked with two of the three teachers and all fourth grade students. The two teacher participants were Faith Hughes, who taught writing, and Natalie Kincaid, who taught math ( all names are pseudonyms) At R EA, four teachers shared responsibility for about 100 fifth and sixth graders. Grade levels were mixed in every class, and the teachers adjusted groupings of students and instructional responsibilities often. Platooning was different from TSE because teachers did not specialize in one content area, but rather taught specific curricular units to all four homeroom classes on successive weeks. The research participant, Star Ewing was the only female on the grade level team. B both schools, I sent consent letters home to parents of all students in the grade level. I obtained consent from about 50% of parents and assent from their children in e ach school. The researcher. I tried to enhance the quality of the research process and outcome by asking good questions, listening closely, staying adaptive and flexible, understanding the issues under study, and being sensitive and receptive to contradi ctory evidence (Yin, 2009) As the chief research instrument (Murchison, 2010) I tried to capture in fieldnotes what was happening in the classrooms based on my observations and participation. Because of my professional experience with schools, teaching, and using technology with students, I had to actively question (Delamont, Atkinson, & Pugsley, 2010, p. 3) I reminded myself daily to write about my reactions to classroom events so

PAGE 94

81 I could later in terrogate my own assumptions and biases. I attempted to document my own shifts in thinking about the classroom practices just as closely as I documented classroom observations. Data Collection Case study research, particularly using an ethnographic pe (LeCompte & Schensul, 2013, p. 52) through a number of research methods and techniques (Murchison, 2010) Data collection included observations, interviews, inventories, audio and video recordings, and artifacts. The information may be considered (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 138) resources for potential data (Erickson, 2012, p. 1458, italics in original) Table 4 provides an overview of data collection methods I used. Collection Methods Participation observations. As the research instrument in the proposed stud y, I adopted the role of daily participant as observer in the classrooms (Takyi, 2015) As participant as observer I experience d cultural activities as an insider while also viewing the activities as an outsider to stay attuned to nuances of cultural norms (Spradley, 1980; Takyi, 2015) Spradley (1980) pointed out observations take place in social situations composed of spaces, actors, and activities. Spaces under observation were elementary classrooms; actors were students and teachers; and the activities were those classroom events that involved the use of digital technology. Observations were a means for documenting my encounters with classroom culture in the presence of those involved in the activities and whose insights I strove to understand (Polkinghorne, 2005) I captured the essence of my observations through video and audio recordings, daily fieldnotes, memos, and jottings (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995) The combination of written, audio, and video records enhanced the analysis by providing for multimodal and multilevel analysis of significant moments.

PAGE 95

82 Table 4 D ata Collection Methods Method Features Purpose Participation observation Extended periods of participation and observation in a classroom Become familiar with setting and local meanings; build participant trust; identify key moments and informants Jottings Brief notes of observational information captured in a notebook Retain key phrases and noticings for expansion into fieldnotes Fieldnotes Extensive written observation records created from jottings and headnotes Create a written record of what was observed Memos thinking separate from but connected to fieldnotes Promote deeper analysis and theoretical thinking; document hunches, ideas, or connections Research Journal Reflective dia ry maintained throughout all phases of study Reflect on fieldnotes and subjective ideas; document progression of thinking Interviews Semi structured conversations with key informants Build contextual understanding; elicit multiple perspectives Inventories Semi structured interviews that probe individual repertoires of knowledge Understand skills, interests and knowledge bases; document contextualized digital repertoires Repertory Grids Semi structured interviews for discovering conceptual ideas ; open card sorts for children Gain participant conceptual perspectives on technology Consultations Conversations with participants throughout the study during incidental encounters Test ideas; develop themes; gather participant perspectives; validate int erpretations Documents and artifacts Background information; supplemental materials, student products Understand the social and cultural contexts of the case; gather samples to illustrate findings Video recordings Digital capture of detailed and accurate moments of action Record critical moments for more detailed analysis; attend to communicative patterns Photographs Digital pictures of setting or student work Supplement fieldnotes; illustrate findings

PAGE 96

83 Jottings. Jottings might be considered condensed notes taken in situ (Spradley, 1980) During observation and participation, I was often too active to record detailed notes. Instead, I jotted notes on paper to serve as reminders of what had hap pened (Emerson et al., 1995) At the same time, I was also taking headnotes (Emerson et al., 1995) of details surrounding the jottings. J ottings were concrete details and snippets of speech (Spradley, 1980) rather than language that judged or evaluated actions (Emerson et al., 1995) The combination of jottings and headnotes later became full fieldnotes. Fieldnotes. accounts describing experiences and observations the researcher h as made while participating in (Emerson et al., 1995, p. 4 5, italics in original) I wrote expanded fieldnote accounts as soon as I could after leaving an observation. At REA, I often had time right after lunch to type fieldnotes while students were at specials. Although I wanted to concerning student privacy rights usually precluded my attendance at their planning meetings. Grade level planning sessions a lmost always included the special education teacher, ESL coordinator, and school counselor. In the evening s at home, I added end of the day information to the fieldnotes. At TSE, I initially wrote fieldnotes at my hotel room right after I left the school, but slow and unreliable internet access often frustrated me. The TSE teachers told me the most reliable internet connection could be found at a fast food restaurant a mile down the road from the school. I generally went to the restaurant to write up the fi eldnotes and, when I had finished, headed to dinner and then the hotel.

PAGE 97

84 Researchers use different kinds of fieldnotes determined by the context and goal (Spradley, 1980) I wrote initial contact fieldnotes after each initial interacti on with participants to record initial impressions, topics of conversation, and other outcomes or events (Miles & Huberman, 1994) As is common in case study, I also wrote accounts of my initial impressions of the community before familiarity with the context set in (Spradley, 1980) Memoing. While writing fieldnotes, I reflected on and began to place meaning on what I had observed (Emerson et al., 1995) Some reflective thinking went into the fieldnotes as asides or commentary, but when I wanted to express deeper analytic thinking, I wrote memos in process (Emerson et al., 1995) For me, the act of writing makes thinking visible. Memos were my record of thinking on the page I also treated emails to my advisor as memos, since I often gave an overview of what I was thinking up to that point. Research journal. I tried to write in my research journal regularly as well. During data collection, my research journal captured miscellaneous information that did not seem to belong in fieldnotes or qualify as deep reflective thinking for memos. The journal was where I q uestioned my assumptions, recorded frustrations and celebrations, thought about future events, listed tasks yet to be accomplished, and generally collected miscellany too scattered to belong anywhere else. Interviews. If participant observation is the cor e of research with an ethnographic perspective and a way of seeing (Wolcott, 2001) interviews offer a way of hearing the meaning of what was observed (Forsey, 2008) I supplemented parti cipation observation with semi structured and opportunistic interviews with teachers, selected students, and key personnel in the schools and districts. All scheduled interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Interview schedules differed based on the (See Table 5 .)

PAGE 98

85 Formally scheduled interviews with teachers, administrators, district personnel, and students were audio recorded and later transcribed for analysis. I conducted semi structured interviews with pr incipals, non targeted teachers at the same grade level, paraprofessionals, and district instructional technologists. With the teacher participants, I conducted two types of interviews: Digital repertoire inventories and repertory grid development intervie ws. Students were audio recorded during digital repertoire inventories and open card sorts. When teachers and I talked informally before and after school, I made jottings about the not audio recorded. Digital repertoire inventory interviews. As stated in Chapter 1, I had a hunch that used, and made meaningful in classrooms. To understand repertoires, I conducted digital repertoire inventory interviews, modeled after Learning Ecology Interviews (Barron et al ., 2009) with the teachers of the targeted classrooms and up to six students per class. Students were chosen based on willingness to talk with me rather than specific criteria concerning their technology knowledge or skills. I scheduled digital repertoire inventory interviews with teachers during the first participation observation cycle in their schools. Teachers were asked to recount memories of learning technology skills, comparative uses of digital technologies at home and school, key influences on their classroom technology use, pedagogical stance on the use of technology as a teaching and learning tool, and areas of past and future growth in technology use. During the second and third cycles of participation observation, I interviewed students about their digital technology repertoires. Interview questions explored topics of digital technology usage at home, sources for learning technology skills, particular digital tool

PAGE 99

86 interests/participation, and the influences of othe rs (e.g., family members, friends, out of school programs) on digital tool uses at home and school. Table 5 Interview Timeline Observation block Interview Type Participant s Purpose Daily Opportunistic conversations Classroom teachers observations Any week Semi structured conversations Principal, district administrator, other teachers in school To gain contextual information about the use of technology in the school and district Cycle 1 Digital repertoire inventory Classroom teacher s To capture th digital technology interests, skills, and knowledge at home and school Cycle 2 or 3 Digital repertoire inventory Up to six student key informants per school digital interests, skills, and knowle dge at home and school Cycle 2 or 3 Repertory grid Classroom teacher s To understand the meanings teachers place on the digital equipment in the classroom and home Cycle 3 Repertory grid with card sort Up to six student key informants per school To understand the meanings students place on digital technologies and activities in their lives Cycle 3 End of project interview Classroom teachers To understand how the teachers perceived the research project Repertory grid interviews. The repertory grid, also called repgrid (Curtis, Wells, Higbee, & Lowry, 2008) is a method for flexible yet structured interviews (Fransella, Bell, & Bannister, 2004) with the goal of learning the meaning individuals place on events and thi ngs (Fromm, 2004; Goffin, Lemke, & Koners, 2010) Developed by Kelly in the 1950s (Goffin et al., 2010; Jankowicz, 2004) for clinical psychology work, the grid technique is based on a constructivist

PAGE 100

87 (Curtis et a l., 2008, p. 38) aspects of their lives through bipolar verbal contrasts. Repertory grid interviews have been used in a wide variety of research and marketing studies (Curti s et al., 2008; Fromm, 2004) An example of a repertory grid (Figure 3) published with a creative commons license on SlideShare (Thomas, 2010) provides a visual representation to accompany the explanation below. Figure 3 Example of a r epertory g rid with pre determined elements pict ured across the top of the grid and participant generated constructs along the sides. The right hand construct (i.e., juicy) is given a numeric value of one, while its contrast in the left column (i.e., fleshy) is given a numeric code of 5. Ratings along t he row indicate how well the participant feels the elements fit with the constructs. Repertory grids are rating scales made up of four constituents: topic, elements, constructs, and ratings (Jankowicz, 2004) The topic is the area of interest for which a researcher wishes to elicit how a person thinks, such as friendship or foods. In the sample grid, the topic is fruit. In the study I conducted the topic was digital technologies.

PAGE 101

88 Elements are objects on which the grid will be based (Easterby Smith, 1980) I n the sample grid, the elements are fruits which are shown with pictures as well as words. In the study I conducted, the elements were digital technology devices. Elements must be homogenous (from the same category) and provide representative coverage (include the elements that logically belong in the category) of the topic (Easterby Smith, 1980; Fransella et al., 2004) Elements may be supplied by the researcher, generated by the interviewee or elicited through discussion, but it is essential that the elemen ts refer to the interviewee generate elements although with children it may be more effective to provide the elements (Fromm, 2004) In a repertory grid interview with an adult, a common practice is to have the interviewee supply the elements, constructs, and ratings for the grid, which is filled in as the interview progresses. Given the topic, the interviewee provides 10 20 element s for the columns of the matrix. Sometimes researchers will provide general element categories to elicit specific elements from the interviewee (Jankowicz, 2004) might be course you liked, course you disliked, course that influenced your disserta tion topic, course that challenged you etc. Often the interviewee will be given a topic and asked to name specific objects related to the topic. In the repertory grid interviews I conducted, I asked teachers to write up to ten digital tools and devices in the elements area of a blank grid. The teachers listed digital equipment, such as cell phones, laptops, document cameras, and projectors. While this generated a different list of elements from each teacher, it provided insight into what the teachers individually considered relevant and important.

PAGE 102

89 Constructs tell how a person thinks (Jankowicz, 2004) Personal constructs are the meanings individuals attribute to things or events by putting them in context with other things or events (Fromm, 2004) In other words, constructs are created out of contrasts (Jankowi cz, 2004) In the sample repertory grid (Figure 3), two personal constructs are present: juicy in contrast to fleshy and sweet in contrast to tangy A construct for the topic of digital technologies might be stationary and mobile The construct of a g ood teacher can only be understood in contrast to what other alternatives exist (Jankowicz, 2004) Good has a different meaning in contrast to ineffective than in contrast to harsh Constructs are specific to a context and change when the context changes (Fromm, 2004) For instance, the construct/contrast of stationary and mobile would not be applicable to describe a relationship for the topic of best friends. When the elements have been named, constructs are elicited from the interviewee. Generally, a researcher selects three elements, being sure to rotate the triads so that eac h element (Fransella et al., 2004) The response to that question indicates a construct. Eliciting the constructs from the interviewee diminishes researcher bias in the process (Curtis et al., 2008) but researchers must be conscientious about eliciting clearly contrasted poles, not necessarily linguistic opposites (J ankowicz, 2004) A good teacher and a bad teacher are linguistic opposites, but not clearly contrasted poles of a construct. Probing to understand for a more specific definition of bad will clarify what good means. With the addition of each construct, the participant rates the elements. Ratings are usually numbers on a scale (Fransella et al., 2004) The ratin gs reveal what a person thinks about the elements in relationship to the constructs (Jankowicz, 2004)

PAGE 103

90 When teachers had gener ated their lists of elements, I chose three triads of equipment Teachers often generated three to five constructs for each triad and then rated all the elements on a sc ale of one to five. Teachers explained their thinking processes as they completed each set of constructs and the ratings. The interviews continued until all elements had been used in triads. With children, the repertory grid may be adjusted to simplify the process (I. A. Baxter, Jack, & Schrodder, 1998; Curtis et al., 2008) One variation tried by I. A. Baxter et al. was the use of laminated photographs of vegetables, which children ages 8 11 successfully compared in dyads t o create constructs. One advantage of asking children to generate constructs is that they can use their own language rather than a list of attributes for which they might need explanation (I. A. Baxter et al., 1998) Other investigators have used card sorts, where participants are asked to sort cards into groups b ased on similarities. The participants then describe the similarities and differences among the piles of cards (Easterby Smith, 1980; Jankowicz, 2004) For student repertory grids, I developed two sets of cards for use in open card sorts. Both sets of cards had words handwritten on them. The first card sort was a collection of 14 digital generated list s. The second card sort was 24 individuals do with technology, such as playing, texting, downloading, photographing and S kyping Students sorted the cards into categories and talked about their reasoning as they sorted. Card sorts were useful for triggering students to provide details about their technology experiences. In some cases, students referenced devices they owned but had not talked about in the inventory interviews. Consultations. Consultations were opportunistic conversations during incidental encounters with other people in the school. I did not try to guide these conversations but rather

PAGE 104

91 listened for information relev ant to understanding technology use and school context. I made certain each individual knew about my research project. Through the conversations I could test my hunches, gain different perspectives, and develop themes. Artifacts. I collected artifacts prim arily to gain background knowledge about the schools and communities. For instance, the town had monthly newsletters and a walking tour map. At the history. Becau se almost all documents shared by teachers and students were digital and I did not have access to the digital accounts, I did not gather student or teacher work documents. Video recordings. During observations I used the video cameras on my cell phone and a Dell Venue8 tablet to capture moments of interest when students had free choice to use their computers. I was interested in the interactions among students and between students and their devices. The video clips were all snippets of less than five minut es. I used video to re awaken my memory of events when students were using digital devices for their own purposes. Photographs. When I saw events or places I wanted to remember, I used my cell phone camera to snap photographs. Most photographs focused on t he rural and town contexts, such a vistas and cultural practices. In the schools, I photographed bulletin boards, classroom posters, equipment set Data Management Data Organization Da ta was collected both physically and electronically. For digital files, such as daily fieldnotes, journal entries, memos, photographs, and videos, I developed file naming conventions and saved the data daily in appropriate folders on my laptop. Each weeken d, I synched my laptop and desktops files.

PAGE 105

92 Audio digital files were transferred to my desktop every weekend. I began transcribing audio files in November, 2016, but fell behind as the number of files stacked up in the spring. Most audio files were transcri bed in the summer of 2017. As students and teachers returned assent and consent forms to me, I logged the responses in a Google spreadsheet and then placed the forms themselves in a locking file cabinet in my office. Because the spreadsheet was online, I could access it while I was in the classrooms to be Data Analysis In case studies, data analysis cannot wait until data collection is finished because of the volume of information gathered along the way. Instead, researchers must conduct analysis from the beginning of the research project (Merriam, 1998; Murchison, 2010; Yin, 2009) Analysis and interpretation require the researcher to cull through the data to find the information that will best explain the case. Stake (1995) discussed two approaches: dire ct interpretation and the researcher looks for themes across sev eral observations and determines whether the themes help make the case understandable. Early in the observation cycle, I noted patterns of practices and events. I tried to stay mindful of the research questions, since some patterns were contextual and not always related to the use of technology. In an ethnographic case study, culling the information of research importance from the merely interesting material requires disciplined attention to the questions under study. For instance, the practice of instruct ional platooning (teaching one subject multiple times to a rotation of students rather than teaching multiple subjects once to a self contained

PAGE 106

93 classroom of students) was an interesting phenomena in both settings, although each staff enacted it differently While I made notes about the phenomena, it was not clear at the beginning whether platooning was an interesting instructional choice or a contextual factor influencing the use of technology. I needed to discipline myself to refer back to the research que stions and look at the phenomena through the lens of the questions. When I noted patterns or themes across several observations, I wrote analytical memos to document my thinking and preserve the ideas and evidence. I then tested the ideas during subsequen t observations and conversations with teachers to confirm or disconfirm my initial analysis ideas. Analysis Tools Software for overall analysis. When data collection was complete, I organized digitized documents in MAXQDA 12 ( http://www.maxqda.com/ ), a qualitative data analysis software package. I had used the software package in the past and found it offered flexibility in organizing, coding, and making connections across research accounts. The coding I did in MAXQDA 12 was particularly helpful in sorting information related to each research question, and fostering interpretations of the data. Software for repertory grid analysis. Some researchers c laim that the interview elicitation phases of repertory grids offer the most valuable information and further analysis is not needed (Curtis et al., 2008; Jankowicz, 2004) However, I believed additional analysis could provide new ideas. I used WebGrid Plus ( http://webgrid.uvic.ca/ ), an online repertory grid analysis software provided through the University of Calgary, for preliminary analysis of the

PAGE 107

94 in repgrids. I entered the information fro models from the data. The software provided initial interpretations of the data. Spreadsheets. I used spreadsheets for secondary analysis of data. After extracting information from interviews and obs ervations notes on specific themes in MAXQDA 12 I export ed the information to spreadsheets where I could sort on different criteria, or even do nested sorts with conditional formatting. My spreadsheet workbooks also often had series of individual pages fo r subsets of the data. also performed a secondary analysis of the I created spreadshe ets for my own purposes as well. I developed matrices to track school observations, interviews, and key ideas for each school (Miles & Huberman, 1994) While documenting the affordances of technology in elementary schools, I built a spreadsheet for sorting e difficult to analyze with software, so I reproduced their card sorts in a spreadsheet workbook for content analysis and comparison. Interim descriptions. Writing often clarifies my thinking, and I used written descriptions as preliminary and secondary analysis tools. For example, I wrote preliminary descriptions of the locales, schools, and teachers to declutter my mind and keep the information fresh. I coded MAXQDA 12 and then wrote summaries for each of the codes. Ana lysis of video recordings. I collected very little video in the classrooms, partly because I was usually active as a participant. The few clips I obtained were taken when students

PAGE 108

95 had choice about how to use their computers. I cataloged the basic aspects o f activities and events in each clip (Heath, Hindmarsh, & Luff, 2010) Case analysis. Each case was analyzed at the end of the third observati on period. I use d (1994) to summarize preliminary data analysis and generalizations. The form was used to write up interim case summar ies that capture d non comparative description s of each case. When the interim case summaries had been completed I use d a comparative case analysi s. Miles and Hubermann have created examples of cross comparative matrices that guide d my own development of a cross case metamatrix. Trustworthines s Four questions guide researcher s in considering the trustworthiness of research stud ies : 1. How can I establish the findings are credible ? 2. How can I establish the applicability of the findings to other settings? 3. How can I establish that the findings are dependable ? 4. How can I establish the confirmability of the findings? (Guba, 1981) Credibility. Credibility is enhanced through prolonged engagement in the field, member checks, triangulation, and peer reviews (Guba, 1981) I conducted a prolonged observational study in two schools for more than 200 hours per school over the 2016 2017 school year. Since the purpose of the study was to understand the perspectives of teachers and students in rural and small town classrooms, I consistently checked with participants about my hunches and observations (Murchison, 2010) The selection of two sites with similar profiles provided opportunities for data triangulation (Denzin, 1970) because the information about digital technology use was drawn from different settings, different points of view, and different sources

PAGE 109

96 of data (i.e., interviews, field notes, and artifacts). Finally, I enhanced the credibility of the research through on going conversations with peers to review my processes and findings. Transferability. Transferability refers to whether findings can be generalized to other sites and contexts. Tr ansferability is determined by the reader based on the contextual description provided by the researcher (Guba, 1981) Because of prolonged engagement in the field, ethnographers have large amounts of information about the context of the research. The copious activities Additionally because the thick description covers three classroom contexts in two different types of communities, readers can compare their own contexts with the contexts of the research sites. Dependability. Consistency among the findings is the central concern in dependability (Guba, 1981) The use of multiple data collection methods and multi locale contexts increased dependability of the findings. I provided an audit trail by dating al l documentation, keeping a documentation matrix, and writing memos to capture thinking as it evolved. Confirmability. Confirmability is a response to criticisms about the lack of objectivity in qualitative research (Guba, 1981) As an ethnographer I did not strive for objectivity, since I needed to develop personal relationships within the context s in order to understand the perspectives of the participants (Murchison, 2010) Instead of trying to remain objective, I used (Guba, 1981) Additionally, I kept a research journal where I documented introspections about the data, personal biases, emerging insights, and shifts in orientation. Journal entries were digitized and became part of the data fo r analysis. Despite efforts to address trustworthiness, replication of any ethnographic research project is unattainable. My research dipped a toe in a stream of classroom practices: Returning to

PAGE 110

97 the same stream even seconds later would not yield the sam e context. Case study r eaders must decide based on the research report whether the study demonstrates trustworthiness. Ethics The proposed research study required IRB and district approvals, which are basic ethical considerations for any research. All p articipants were asked to give written consent, or in the case of students, assent with parental consent. Participants were reminded often that they could choose to opt out of the research at any time. I aligned myself ethically with Denzin (1989) who state d: our primary obligation is always to the people we study, not to our project or to a larger discipline. The lives and stories that we hear and study are given to us under a promise, that promise being that we protect those who have shared them with us (p. 83) Protection of P articipants IRB standards require researchers to protect participants from harm and to honor researched comm unity and developed relationships with participants, preserving anonymity for participants locally was not feasible. Staff, administration, students, and parents knew why I was in classrooms. C ommunity members who ultimately read the ethnographic report are likely to be able to identify at least some participants. I used several strategies to protect the privacy of pa rticipants as much as possible: I asked participants to choose pseudonyms. The participant key with real names and pseudonyms has been kept in a lockable filing cabinet in my home. Places, districts, and schools were given generic names as pseudonyms. A ll demographic data has been rounded to the nearest percentage divisible by five. Population data was rounded to the nearest 25. The rounding of percentages and populations was essential to disguise the communities and schools.

PAGE 111

98 Transparency I was transparent with staff and community about my research role so they could choose whether to be involved in settings when I was present. I emphasized my role as a learner seeking to understand the classroom activities as they, teachers and students, u nderstand them. Although I was conducting observations in two schools, I did not intend to evaluate nor compare teachers or practices or schools for effectiveness, nor did I compare students against any benchmark. I adhered to the goal of seeking to unders use of digital technology in the classroom in their community. Unanticipated D ilemmas I could not anticipate whether ethical dilemmas would arise during the research. Fortunately, I did not encounte r situations requiring advice from my advisor or committee. Researcher Stance I am and will always be a teacher first and researcher second. My involvement in classrooms during my doctoral programs has shown students gravitate toward me for help with aca demic questions, assistance with behavioral distractions, and one on one attention. M y role as a researcher placed me in a subordinate role to the classroom teachers. I asked the teachers to articulate their preferences for how I should relate to students as a participant as observer. I kept a daily journal where I was reflexive about conflicts between my own expectations for classroom activities and what I experienced in the classrooms. I could not erase my own experiences as a teacher, administrator, or coach. I was aware my experiences could blind me to taken for granted practices that should be interrogated. I also grappled to appreciate unfamiliar practices as evidence of expertise different from my own.

PAGE 112

99 My experiences as an elementary school technolo gy leader and then a district instructional technology administrator as well as my authorship of two books on technology integration have shaped and revealed my own biases about how technology should be used in a classroom. Yet, I was genuinely intereste because I believed th e knowledge could provide insights to share when I coach integration technology specialists in the future. Much as I tried to approach the research project with an open mind, I have had to acknowledge preconceptions I brought i nto the inquiry. I n my book Integrating Technology in the Classroom: Tools to Meet the Needs of Every Student (Hamilton, 2015) I wrote No matter what learning theory you hold, when technology is added to a classroom, the learning environment changes. Teachers can change their approaches while the technology is in use, or they will experience fru stration trying to impose boundaries on student use (p.15). I assumed teaching with technology would push teachers to be more constructivist in their pedagogical approaches My assumption arose opt projects and d aily practices in ways that forced their teachers to cede control of how students did their work and had also read accounts of similar changes to classrooms (Inan et al., 2010; Van Leeuwen & Gabriel, 2007) However, I now recognize this assumption as a fallacy. Teachers can use digital tools to simply replicate the teacher centered instruction al practices they had done before without technology, as Cuban (1986) predicted. However, students may, and often do, subversively resist the boundaries teachers place on their digital device use. Teaching is a complex art and science. Although I thought in one school year I would have a nearly complete understanding of the three classroom communities where I engaged with teachers and students, I quickly realized how superficial my understand ing has been. I know more than I did when I entered the settings, and I also know there was far more to learn.

PAGE 113

100 CHAPTER IV THE CONTEXTS OF SMALLTOWN AND TOWN SCHOOL ELEMENTARY The theoretical framework for this research emphasized the contexts of home, scho ol, and other social communities as influences on the development of digital repertoires. Part of the educational ethnographic research took place in a town in the Rocky Mountain region. In this chapter, I describe the town, school, and classrooms as conte xts framing the use of digital technologies. All names of places and people are pseudonyms and characteristics that might identify the town, such as population figures or specific mountain names, have been generalized. The chapter provides extensive descr iption s of daily practices in two classrooms. The class transactions around digital tools. Smalltown Smalltown lies in a mountain valley in the borderlands that transition from snowcapped Rocky Mountains to the western slopes of high desert plateaus. Not only is Smalltown surrounded by mountain peaks (Figure 4 ), but the town itself perches on the south side of a mountain and is slightly more than a mile above sea level. Incorporated more than 125 years ago as a busy coal mining community, Smalltown has experienced cycles of booming growth and dramatic decline as mining, agriculture, lumbering, and oil and gas drilling have waxed and waned. In the 2000 census, Smalltown was classified as a Rural community with almost 2,000 residents. Seventeen years later, the classification was changed to Town Remote when the population grew to about 4,500 residents. In the years

PAGE 114

101 Figure 4 View from S now capped mountains are visible in all directions from the school The climate of the town itself is quite dry with an average rain and snow precipitation of about 15 inches per year. mountain on a shelf of level land about two fifths of a mile long and a sixth of a mile wide. The land shelf drops precipitously from the Main Street area to the valley floor where a transportation belt for trains, trucks, and trout parallels the town. Public buildings, such as the post office and library, and small proprietorships, including restaurants, repair shops, and architecture firms, On the mountain side of Main Street, short streets of about ten houses push o nto the e. On the river side of Main Street, only a narrow strip of businesses back up to the drop off. At the east end of Main Street where the highway exits, two new shopping centers l business. The shopping centers house a grocer y store, bank, diner, fast food restaurant, gas station, and offices. A two lane bridge over the highway connects

PAGE 115

102 packed trailer park on the opposite side of the walk to town if they lack transportation. With population growth came a housing boom on the north and west sides of the mountain. What used to be agricultural grazing land is now subdivided into apartme nt, townhouse, and single home developments, including custom homes located on the edge of a golf course. Well tended roads snake through the developments and wrap around both sides of Smalltown is surrounded by a number of protected wilderness areas, and residents have access to year round outdoor sports, from fishing and hiking to hunting (Figure 5 ) and camping and skiing and snowboarding. Wildlife is abundant in the mountainous terrain. Figure 5. Hide barrels. In October, this hide barrel was placed by the local Boy Scout troop along an access road outside Smalltown. The barrel was empty when I left town on a Thurs day, full when I returned in the late afternoon on Sunday and gone by Monday morning Outdoor sports support the local economy all year. Residents of Smalltown regularly travel about 15 miles for access to a town of almost 10,000 people where consumers have broader shopping choices. The nearest large cities (>50,000 people) are about 75 miles to the west or about 130 miles east over mountain passes.

PAGE 116

103 Town School Elementary (TSE) we re part of a rural district with about a dozen schools. Over time the district ha d built and re purposed schools to accommodate burgeoning enrollments. At the time of this study, Smalltown had two PK 4 elementary schools and a 5 8 middle school. A regional high school was located outside of town. Three of the four schools had been built since the mid 90s and the fourth underwent major renova tions. Across the district, schools adhered to a four day instructional week (Plucker, Cierniak, & Chamberlin, 2012) Students attended for 7.75 hours Monday through Thursday. At least once a month, teachers reported on Fridays for staff development or team planning. The other Fridays in the month were non school days, although teachers sometimes used Fridays to catch up on planning or administrative tasks. For the dissertation study, I researched in two fourth grade classrooms at Town School Elementary (TSE), the newer of two elementary s chools in the town. When the new school was student population from the new housin g developments (minus the high priced golf course housing development) on the north side of the mountain and the low income trailer park on the other side of the river Students who lived in the nearby housing developments walked to school. Students from t he trailer park were bused to TSE. S chool buses served both TSE and the middle school next door simultaneously TSE hallways were wide, uncluttered, and brightly lit. Hallway bulletin boards displayed motivational messages about behavior expectations, pl anning for the future, and school spirit.

PAGE 117

104 Figure 6 Motivational bulletin board. Motivational messages were prevalent across the whole school building, including doors to the playground, the most trafficked hallways, and the school entry and were change d approximately every month. The behavioral bulletin board pictured here was locat ed near the library. Behavioral messages (Figure 6 ) advocated for persevering, using kind words, standing up against bullying, and thinking positively. Planning for the future bulletin boards encouraged students to envision high school, plan for college, and dream about career possibilities. School spirit bulletin boards celebrated s such as the school garden and newly built STEM lab. tips for test taking, strategies for pr oblem solving, and recommendations for pleasure reading covered three bulletin boards in the fourth grade hall. The student data available from the state website for TSE came from the 2008 2015 school years. Student enrollment at TSE had steadily decline d from a high of 350 students in 2008 (the beginning of an economic downturn for the town) to a current population of about 270 students (all data were rounded to the nearest 5). The ethnicity enrollment had remained relatively stable over the past five ye ars with the majority of families claiming White (~60%) or Hispanic (~35%) backgrounds. About 20% of students were identified as English Language Learners. The percentage of students eligible for the national free and reduced lunch program

PAGE 118

105 had remained ste ady at 45%. The student mobility rate was equivalent to the state average of about 15%. The median academic growth in English Language Arts and Math in 2016 sat slightly above the state median growth percentile of 50%, with growth in math exceeding growth in English language arts by about 5%. Principal Johnson had been in the district ten years and was serving her fourth year as principal during the 2016 2017 school year when data were collected. A young and energetic administrator, Principal Johnson was highly visible in the hallways and knew TSE students by schools. Because of her training in Instructional Technology, she had capitalized on the use of digita l devices and, particularly, a new STEM lab, as school marketing tools. Fourth Grade Fourth grade classes shared their wing of the school with art and technology classes, a s were situated at the far end of the wing, hallway traffic around the classrooms was confined to fourth grade students. The three fourth grade teachers platooned for math, writing, and social studies/science. Each teacher taught one section of reading. Fo r the dissertation study, I split my time between the classrooms of two teachers: Faith Hughes (writing teacher) and Natalie Kincaid (math teacher). The daily schedule (Figure 7) included a 90 minute reading block, three 65 minute instructional blocks, a nd a 30 minute remedial/enrichment block. Homeroom, recess, lunch, and specials filled out the schedule. Fourth grade students rotated daily for specials so each student attended physical education, music, art, library, and technology classes in the space of five school days.

PAGE 119

106 Figure 7 The fourth grade schedule was posted in all fourth grade classrooms and stayed consistent throughout the year. Brain Break was recess and Hawk Block was the remedial and enrichment time. Teachers used fourth grade money for rewards and punishment. Students earned money by doing homework, completing classroom jobs, turning in extra homework, and conforming to classroom behavior expectations. Students were fined for behaving in inappropriate ways or failing to do homework o r classroom jobs. Students could spend fourth grade money on privileges, such as special seating, wearing a hat, or staying in at recess to use computers, or on an end of grading period auction held by the fourth grade teachers. During the 2016 2017 scho ol year, TSE fourth grade was pioneering one to one computing devices in their classrooms. Classrooms had shared access to iPads in prior years. In the 2016 17 school year, Natalie Kincaid had a class set of iPads while Faith Hughes and the third team memb er, Kayla Richardson, had class sets of Chromebooks. Teachers assigned

PAGE 120

107 student computers to desks, rather than individual students. This meant students alternated using TSE Teacher 1: Faith Hughes Faith Hughes (a pseudonym) fit the profile of many teachers in town and rural areas (Reininger, 2012) ; she graduated from a district high school in the late 80s and taught in the same district where she had graduated. Although her first seven years of teaching were in a neighboring town, she had been at TSE about seven years and even lived within sight of school. As a local, Faith knew the customs and tra ditions of the area. She had also coached high school sports and had known families over generations. Faith first taught in the 1990s when computers were still rare in classrooms. Teachers learned to use district owned software for grading, reporting atte ndance, and intranet communications. In technology training sessions, teachers s a t, watch ed and t ook copious notes in hopes they could return to their computers and implement what they had seen. The internet was just beginning to make an impact when Faith took a seven year leave to raise children. By the time Faith returned to teaching, the world of technology had changed considerably. Teachers had laptops and access to other digital technologies. District trainings were often hands on opportunities, and the internet was widely used for administrative and opportunities to learn technology, including state and national technology conferences, district trainings and in school teacher to teacher demonstrations. In the fourth grade platooning rotation, Faith taught writing for all fourth grade students. She also taught one reading block and a series of enrichment units during the intervention/enrichment block.

PAGE 121

108 HOMEROOM: Morning bell rang at 8:05. Students entered the classroom, hung up their backpacks and coats, and settled at their desks. Students generally talked quietly about the weather or events, but two or three students often came in very noisily. Most other students ignored the noise. Two or three s tudents with cell phones placed them on a c redenza at the Two students, who had applied for their classroom jobs, unplugged Chromebooks at the charging stations and set them in the center of each hexagonal table. Chromebooks were numbered as were corresponding seats. Other students conducted their jobs unrelated to technology lunch count, sharpening pencils, etc. Students settled down to handwrite the learning goals for each of their three block classes (writing, math, and science/social studies) in their notebook planners. The learning goals were the rounds to see if studen ts had done their homework (reading for 20 minutes) and obtained All school announcements sometimes started with lively music clips related to the weather or season. The principal or instructional coach r the Pledge of Allegiance followed by the recitation of the school motto to strive for high conversation or reading. A bell signaled the transition to reading blocks. READING: Faith taught fourteen students in the highest reading group The grouping changed each quarter, depending on how student s performed. The school followed a controlled reading curriculum which, for the high achieving group, seemed to run on a 5 or 6 day cycle for

PAGE 122

109 each unit. Students created Google documents on their Chromebooks for the unit and followed a naming convention f or their documents to identify the reading text and their names. The first activity was building a vocabulary table in the Google document. In this table they typed eight vocabulary words and definitions, which were projected from a curriculum ded to the vocabulary table by typing the sentences from the reading passages where each word was used when they made changes or added text. Each day, students c ompleted a cloze activity as part of vocabulary practice. The cloze passage was projected on the board from the curriculum provided slideshow, and students typed only the answers on their Google documents. Faith orally reviewed the four tasks or questions students would need to complete after After reviewing the questions that set the purpose for rea ding, the class followed a prescribed routine for reading the text. Faith read aloud about two pages, students read aloud in pairs for about two pages, and students read silently about two pages. After the reading was complete, the students wrote their res ponses to the tasks/questions still projected on the board. Sometimes students answered only two questions in writing because the class would review the document s as the vocabulary tables and the cloze activity answers. At least one question each day required students to write full paragraphs.

PAGE 123

110 worked much more slowly than their pee rs, so most students had at least fifteen minutes to read books while they waited for their classmates to finish. When everyone had completed the written responses, Faith conducted a whole class review. She read the cloze sentences and students said the an swers aloud. Faith also reviewed the answers to the questions projected on the board. On the day before the unit test, students shared their Google documents with the th graded the work, wrote feedback as comments on the documents, and occasionally required students to rewrite their paragraphs before taking the unit test. The unit ended with a curriculum created test of essay questions. Students used their Chromebooks work. Since the documents had already been shared with the teacher, students simply logged off their Chromebooks when they were done. The test took most students fewer than 30 minutes. Students then read silently for the remaining hour. Faith had a classroom library from which students could check out books. Students also wrote book talks during free time. Students were required to present a certain number of book talks over t he year. They had a list of questions to cover for each book talk, and often wrote in a question and answer format. Students hand wrote the book talks and read them to the class. They were also required to keep a record of the books they had finished indep endently. They typed the book titles and authors in Google documents on their computers. Faith introduced novel groups to the reading class in March. Generally three students were reading the same book at a pace to finish just before spring break. Their f inal project was a group

PAGE 124

111 to write on and cut out. Students worked in groups to make the bloom balls. BRAIN BREAK (RECESS): Students usually went outside for recess, but when the weather was too cold, they could use computers during recess time in this classroom. Additionally, for Christmas the fourth grade teachers gav e each student a stack of coupons for grade money for the privilege of playing on computers during recess time. Students on computers typically played games (Figure 8), watched YouTube videos (Figure 9), or viewed music videos (Figure 10). Only once did two students share a computer the entire time, and they were trying to master a video game others in the class were playing. One of the partners was new to the U.S. a nd school in October and seemed to have had little exposure to technology. Students were generally loosely monitored. Faith worked at her desk and rarely interacted with students unless it was to calm down those whose enthusiasm became too loud. Some stud ents chose to color or draw rather than use computers. Figure 8 During recess some students played online games. Students generally accessed games through ABC ya or Kizi.com. One group of boys, in particular, sat side by side to play and tell one anoth er what was happening in their games. Other students sat in groups of two or three and talked quietly, if they talked at all.

PAGE 125

112 Figure 9 Some students consistently watched video trailers durin g indoor recess through YouTube Even when two students sat together and watched movie trailers, they interacted very little with one another. Figure 10 A couple of students watched music videos accessed through YouTube. Musical.ly music videos were popular with the students who pa ssed the Chromebook back and forth or shared the headphones when they saw something they particularly liked. Musical.ly is a free download app for phones for recording, editing, and uploading music videos. The app is geared to teens, and the app cautions s ome content may be inappropriate for younger children

PAGE 126

113 RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION/ENRICHMENT TIME: During this half hour, students were spread across the school for reading interventions, language development, group counseling, and enrichment. Many specialists and paraprofessionals were involved with small group s. Faith provided a series of enrichment classes that each lasted about six weeks. The two and one of eight boys. The all girl class lasted through the first s emester. When I asked whether the single gender classes were deliberate, Faith said it just happened that way. Girls were interested in writing, and boys were interested in basketball. Although I was never in the classroom when the teachers re divided the students for intervention/enrichment time, I understood the teachers offered choices of topics to the students who qualified for enrichment. Students signed up for the topics they would rather explore. writing for publication. On a bulletin board, Faith had posted the names and addresses of several magazines that accepted student writing. The class had all girls, and the students handwrote stories or personal experiences. When the stories had been peer reviewed, revised, edited, and approved by the teacher, students typed their final products as Google documents in their Chromebooks. Faith reviewed the documents online for final changes and edits. When the pieces were error free, Faith printed original c In the time I was in the school, no mention was ever made of students getting responses to their submissions. Students were not required to submit their work for publication. Some g irls worked on stories for their own pleasure.

PAGE 127

114 Because Natalie Kincaid was absent for most of January, Faith and the other fourth grade teacher did not teach enrichment, but rather divided the students into equal sized groups and allowed them computer tim e. onal Coll egiate Athletic Association ( www.ncaa.org/ ) website. Students had their Chromebooks on the same web pages as Faith. The class was learning how conferences were organized, how rankings and standings were determi ned, and how the NCAA determined which teams went to the national tournament. Students tried to predict which teams would qualify for tournament berths based on the statistics listed on the NCAA website. BLOCK 1 WRITING: Faith used music for transitioning into writing. When students from the classroom across the hall entered the room, an upbeat song was generally playing By the end of the lively song, students wer e expected to be in their seats with writing journals opened and dated. A writing prompt was displayed by the document camera, although students were permitted to choose other topics. The music changed from the lively Bon Jovi song to classical instrumenta ls during the writing time. Students needed to complete a page of journal writing by the end of ten minutes. If they had filled at least one page of their journals, they could use about two minutes to read their writing to a peer or to draw. Faith usually made a couple of circuits of the room and put tally marks on the tables. It appeared the marks were related to whether students were writing in their journals when the teacher came by. If students were

PAGE 128

115 fiddling around or staring at the paper, Faith put few er tally marks on their table. I did not see how the tally marks were used by the teacher. The writing journal was followed by spelling practice. On the document camera, Faith placed a digital timer or her iPhone with the timer set to 5:00. These spelling lists were separate from the reading vocabulary lists. At the beginning of the year, students took a spelling assessment based on word frequency lists to determine words they needed yet to learn. As a result, students had individualized spelling lists to study and chose five words per week for their students had successfully spelled all the words on their lists, Faith administered additional spelling assessments for small groups of students to create new personalized lists. Spelling practice was done on double sided worksheets. Each day each student w as expected to choose a spe lling activity on the worksheet to complete These activities included writing all vowels in a separate color, alternating colors on the letters of each word, writing word pyramids until the whole word was done, copying each word three times, or other activities. There seemed to be five or six choices of activities, and students had to complete f our different activities during the week. They turned in their worksheets on Thursdays before their spelling handed the tests in to the teacher for grading. Any misspelled words were repeated the following week as challenge words. The next activity was writing instruction. For each unit (I saw the introductions to poetry forms, opinion writing, and group research projects), the teacher introduced the topic to the whole group and gave students worksheets that guided their work. Some of the worksheets were photocopied, and some were documents posted in Google Classroom.

PAGE 129

116 For the poetry unit, Faith projected her computer screen on the whiteboard. She opened the Google search engine and instructed students to navigate on their Chromebooks to the same on their computers. When most students had successfully run the search, Fai th showed them the fourth result entry which was the Ken Nesbitt Poetry for Kids site ( www.poetry4kids.com/ ) and instructed them to click on that entry. From the back of the room, I noticed many students were d istracted once they arrived on the poetry4 kids site only the web page text, Chromebooks showed banner ads along the top and right margin s of the page, including links to some of favorite games, such as Geo Dash and Slither.io. At least two students clicked on ads and explored other sites while waiting for classmates to navigate to the page. When all students had reached the free verse webpage, Faith read each section of the Tips for Writing Free Verse Poetry aloud and engaged students in talking whole group about the ideas. The text focused on how words can be used in free verse and highlighted alliteration and personification, tw o terms students were learning. Students then comp leted worksheets with their own free verse examples. Between classes, I mentioned Faith must have an ad blocker on her She said she had asked IT about blocking a ds for students. The IT department liaison told her because student s had their own log on s Chromebooks could not be loaded with ad blocker s On another day students learned about limericks and were assigned to work in teams to create limericks. The worksh eet had a template for writing a limerick and several examples. me to help them. While students understood the importance of rhythm, they did not seem to

PAGE 130

117 asso ciate the rhythm with syllable counts. Students were also inexperienced with rhyming. For a two syllable place name for a one syllable place name. The students working with me wanted to use Cincinnati and Hawaii as their place names. I sug gested they count the syllables and also think about whether they knew words that rhymed with the place names. The students expresse d frustration, even when I gave them samples of words that could fit the rhythm and rhyme. As a formative assessment prior to an upcoming test on figurative language, Faith created a quiz in Kahoot! ( kahoot.it/ ) a game based learning platform, for students to self assess their preparedness for an up coming test. Faith projected her MacBook computer screen on the for each Kahoot se ssion. Students signed into Kahoot with their Google accounts and typed in ) with a participant count so she could know when everyone was logged on. When all students had signed in, Faith could start the Kahoot quiz. four answer choices. E ach answer had a geometric shape beside it and was written in a colored qu adrants. To answer each question, students clicked on the quadrant matching what they once Faith had read the question aloud. When all students had chosen their answers, the correct

PAGE 131

118 Points were awarded based on the accurac y and speed of each answer. At the end of the game, from one quiz responses, although it was not evident she did. Faith gave students loose leaf paper and instructed them to create study guides with the terms and definitions they had missed. The students were expected to remember the terms they had missed in order to make the study guides. They could consult their handwritten notes in their writing folders to write the definitions for the terms. re conducting internet research for independent five paragraph informational essays. The day before I arrived, they had chosen their topics and begun researching on their Chromebooks using Google as a search engine. In the remaining three days of that week they were expected to complete the internet research, write the essay in Google documents, and engage in an editing/revision activity by exchanging computers with partners. Partners had editing worksheets to follow as they talked with peers about the wri ting. Students and improvements with peers. When the revisions had been completed, students could share their documents with Faith for grading. The following w eek students began grammar practice with grammar worksheets. Faith put copies of the worksheets on the document camera when she introduced each activity or unit. Faith was absent because of illness during the unit, and the substitute teacher taught the les sons.

PAGE 132

119 In March, students were doing group research projects on science topics. Topics included hover crafts, parachutes, gliders, and catapults. After researching the topics on their Chromebooks through Google searches, students conducted hands on experime nts provided by Faith. They were told to conduct the experiments as written in the instructions, with no deviations or adaptations. They were also to document their processes and results in Google documents. Then they were to alter some aspect of the exper iment and hypothesize an outcome. The second experiment was to be documented in the same Google document as the first. T he teams prepared Google slideshows for oral presentations. Faith gave teams a list of the required slides/topics (history of the inven tion, scientific principle, vocabulary, experiment materials and procedures, etc.). The slideshows were usually collaborative efforts, and in many cases all four teammates worked simultaneously on the slideshow but on their individual Chromebooks. Students changed the backgrounds, text colors, and text fonts on their slideshows, with or without consultation with their teams. Sometimes changes were global (all slides) and sometimes on individual slides themselves. Some students searched for pictures to use a s backgrounds for individual slides as well. Many times students copied and pasted te xt from websites they visited. The four students near me who sometimes solicited my feedback showed their slideshow in progress to me. From my seat, a couple of feet away the color choices, font colors, and font sizes were almost impossible to read. I suggested they consider changing their background choice, if nothing else, to make the words easier to read. They stepped to my seat, declared they could read the text just fine, and decided not to adjust any choices. After a week, students were scheduled to present their work. The four teammates would take one Chromebook to the front of the room where a table was placed in front of the

PAGE 133

120 whiteboard. Students projected their s lideshows through a wireless Chromecast device attached to the projector. If they had stood behind the table, their bodies would have been in front of the slideshow, so students knelt on the floor and faced the computer on the table. Usually students had a greed on which student would take which slide. Individual team members read aloud the text on the screen. While teams presented, their classmates filled out short paper rubrics for the teams as a whole. Students could ask questions after the presentations or make suggestions for improvement. The rubrics were given to the teacher who said she would review the comments and give the rubrics to the teams the following week. I was not present when the teams received their rubrics. The following week, Faith intr oduced Ignite presentations ( ignitetalks.io/ ) for the slides, each of which is automatically shown for 15 seconds. Each student would present an Ignite show to the class. Students could choose their own topics to research. To prepare students for the presentations, Faith chose sample Ignite presentations from the Ignite website ( ignitetalks.io/ ). Then Faith was absent because of illness, and her substitute teacher had to show the Ignite samples. On the following day, the substitute instructed students, t needed to write at least thirty questions about his/her topic in a Google document. When students had typed their questions, they could use their Chromebooks to research the answers to the questions and to start gathering photographs for their presentati ons. When Faith returned, she demonstrated the process of preparing to build the presentation by doing each step of the process just before students tried. She showed students the thirty questions she had written about her topic. She then demonstrated how she could group the

PAGE 134

121 questions into categories for research. Some categories had many related questions; some categories had only one or two questions. She reviewed the requirements of the presentations, including showing students how long fifteen seconds was and how much could be said in that time. Students were expected to organize their questions into categories and complete most of their research on Chromebooks before spring break at the end of the week. After spring break, students would develop their presentations in Google slides. They would ensure they had enough information to answer their questions, choose illustrations, and write their presentations. She reminded them they needed to allow time to practice their speeches. RECESS/LUNCH: Students at e in the cafeteria and then went outside. Faith did not have students stay in for lunch to finish work. BLOCK 2 WRITING: After lunch, students rotated to another content area for Block 2. did not make obvious adjustments to the schedule or activities. BLOCK 3 W her homeroom students. This class included three students with noticeable behavior problems and one newly arrived Spanish speaking student. Several bilingual girls and a bilingual par aprofessional helped the new student who was adding English to his language repertoire. Overall, this class seemed to have the most difficulty learning the materials and completing the work. Faith did not adjust the pacing or activities to differentiate fo r students, although some materials were provided in Spanish for the new student and later in the year, an ESL specialist worked with him independently on the projects. SPECIALS: Students from the three homerooms were divided into five groups for special s ubjects: technology, music, physical education, art, and library. The groups rotated to a different

PAGE 135

122 special each day. Faith posted color coded specials rotation schedules on her bulletin board, which students often checked. CLEAN UP/DISMISSAL: Students w ith classroom jobs completed their tasks while the remaining students collected flyers from their mailboxes and gathered up their backpacks and coats. Two students removed the Chromebooks from the tables and plugged them in at the charging stations. Chrome books were placed in numeric order in the charging crates, so it was When students forgot to retrieve their phones, Faith left the phones on the credenza. Fr om experience, she knew they would return for their phones as soon as they remembered. indicates the digital tools Faith counted as important : Student Chromebook computers (assigned to seats) Document camera Projector Digital timer mer Pri nter (housed in this room, often used by teaching partners ) digital tools for the classroom. While they benefited from the use of the document camera,

PAGE 136

123 projector, timer s, and Chromecast daily, they did not identify the items as digital technologies salient to them. skills, aptitude, beliefs, and attitudes. D igital repertoires are continually expanding as individuals gain experience with digital devices interact with digital tools, and participate in digital communities What I captured during the 2016 repertoi re as I observed her use of technologies and as she described her digital life. Her digital repertoire has undoubtedly continued to grow since then, especially since she attended a technology conference in June, 2017. Digital Knowledge Digital knowledge, as I define it, refers to the overall understanding of the capacity of digital tools, what tools are available, and how digital technology is used by children. Many a teacher helped others or introduced a new tool or activity. Occasionally others commented on Faith felt competent as a digital technology user, but only slightly above average. When asked to rate her technology savvy on a scale to ten, with ten meaning exceptional, Faith said, I would probably say a six. I know there are a lot of people a lot less tech savvy so I'm somewhere barely above the middle. about digital

PAGE 137

124 Digital S kills While knowledge is about understanding how technology can be and is used, digital skills refer to having the ability to function with technology. Just turning on a device is a skill (although a low level skill), and try become overwhelming. Instead of documenting all digital skills, I noted the development of skill F Faith had developed her technology skills as an adult, and much of her formal training had come through district and school based classes after she began teaching. Although she did have a one semester basic progra mming class in high school, she was not required to use computers in college. She typed her college papers on a typewriter rather than master the DOS commands required for word processing at that time. It was not until her student teaching, when she was li ving at home, that she had access to her email, internet was available at only 35% of schools (U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics 2002) When Faith returned to teaching in 2007, internet access had proliferated and Faith learned new administrative programs for attendance, grading, and email. At TSE, teachers had access to technology professional development through district integration spec ialists, district sponsored workshops, and in development days.

PAGE 138

125 Faith had some standing as a technology user among her colleagues. She demonstrated one aspect of Verso ( versoapp.com/ ), a cloud based platform for making thinking visible, on a staff development Friday. Faith had learned about the website during a summer conference. She not only demonstrated how to use the application but also shared a sample of a Verso activity she had done with her class. The colleagues and Faith then brainstormed other ideas for the application. Faith and technology in 2016 2017. At the start of the school year, TSE implemented a full one to one program in the fourth grade. Ra ther than shared computers, as was common in the past years, each classroom teacher had a full set of computers. Faith had twenty Chromebooks for her students and set up two charging stations in the classroom for ten computers each. Chromebooks were number ed sequentially and groups of four assigned to each round of tables. Student monitors distributed the Chromebooks each morning and collected them for charging each afternoon. Two fourth grade students named Mrs. Hughes as a teacher who was really good with more consistently than in other classes, so students may have seen Mrs. Hughes in trouble shooting mode more often. When asked why she singled out Mrs. Hughes, Luna responded, Evidence that Faith had confidence to tackle technology problems came when students or othe r staff members approached her with digital issues. With students, Faith generally solved the problems for them. For instance, when students had difficulty logging on their computers, forgot how to cut and paste or make a table, or asked for help with find ing files, Faith tended to sit in

PAGE 139

126 their chairs and take over their computers. When she had solved the problems, students resumed their seats. demonstrate how to access a for m or use a new application. Her peers would stand or sit by her desk, sometimes with their laptops on their laps, and watch or follow her example. A significant example of problem solving happened when Faith tackled the challenge of how to transition eff models, they required different interfaces with the projector. For student presentati ons of slideshows, Faith wanted students to connect directly with the projector. Faith realized the inexpensive Chromecast device she used at home to stream movies to her television could also tor. She bought a Chromecast dongle for her classroom projector and installed it after the holidays. Digital Aptitude Digital aptitude refers to the inclination toward or talent for using technology. This reflects not only a cognitive capacity to gain skills, but also a natural affinity for learning about and using technology. Aptitude may be observed when a person shows enthusiasm for new technologies, innovates with common technologies, or easily transfers knowledge of one technology to the initial us e of another. Faith did not claim an aptitude for technology. She was willing to use digital tools, and she welcomed opportunities to try new technologies and applications, but she had little interest in discovering digital innovations on her own: I don 't necessarily like to go out and find things on my own to like implement in my classroom technology wise. If someone tells me and teaches me about something, I might

PAGE 140

127 go and try it. I think some people are always looking for the next technology thing to ad d. I don't do that. I'm kind of like, I'll wait and see what works best and someone can tell me always willing to try if someone asks me, but I don't really wan t to be the one who comes up with it on my own much. Once someone had given her basic guidance, Faith had enough digital aptitude to figure out digital skills. When asked to test new software or applications, she was willing, and her experiences with new technologies may have provided insight on how it might work for other moderate technology users. Digital B eliefs experiences with technolog ies shape what individuals believe. Beliefs are reflected in the choices individuals make about how and why to use digital tools. Faith said, experiences outside school. s could daughter was in eighth grade, they did this thing and I was, she doesn't have a device, how is she going to do the homework? The only choices we had were go to the library or she could use my computer. But if I needed my computer, she didn't get to use my computer. You can't expect that every kid can do it that way, so you have to have a different plan. They don't all have that access. When I mentioned having diff

PAGE 141

128 students are still novices with technology devices, and Faith believed they did not really understand online safety: There's a program our district has that covers digital safety. I think to some degree children take it to heart as fourth graders. It's hard for them to comprehend how someone else could get into a co mputer and access it. They have a hard time believing that predators could be on their game sites. I don't think they understand. I don't think at their age they can understand how negatively that can affect them. Really, I don't think they know that. They wonder, #1 do your parents know? and #2 do you know who that person really is? It is scary. Faith expressed beliefs about the impor tance of using computers in schools: I think [technology] should be used as much as possible. I know that's the direction the think the more I can incorporate it, the better. In the years she had been out of teaching, Faith had seen her brother introduce technology based projects to his students with great effect. She believed the use of technology engaged his students and was a practice she wanted to emulate. However, she also stated familiarity with technology I think they are more engaged sometimes that way. It's getting less and less because that's just their life. They live on devices and comp uters, so when they first came out, there was In making pedagogical decisions about how and when to use technology, Faith considered the potential for engagement: The first thing I think about when I'm planning a lesson is, is there anything I already know of that could replace like a worksheet? Would it be more engaging to the kids? Does it give as much information as I need it to? How easily accessible is it for kids to get into or do the act ivity on the device? Sometimes what I already have that I've already done is more effective than anything I could locate, you know, within a reasonable amount of time for planning my lesson.

PAGE 142

129 According to t he district technology integration specialists, the district had developed a technology skills agreement that outlined the skills students would master at each level. In elementary schools, this seemed to be a scope and sequence for teaching digital safety and typing. Other skills were not addressed. Faith believed students gained the technical skills they needed through their daily use of technology in school. She commented, Teachingwise, before kids were on devices so much, we'd have to plan the skills th ey would need. Because of the amount we use computers in regular classroom, we don't need to do as much direct instruction on the tech skills that kids will need. Faith believed it was essential for students to understand how to use technology as a learni ng tool: I think [having computers in school] definitely allows kids to independently learn about directly tell them, is you can get on the computer and learn anything. You can hop on and have a question, type it in, it will give you an answer. I think that's really powerful for kids to be able to understand that. Faith recognized students would not always make good choices about how to use computers in school. She said: The challenge obviously is they have their own [computers], so some don't choose to do what they are supposed to do which is a big challenge which we have been trying to deal with. I think some of them are learning their lessons. You can't monitor them all the time. You have to trust or hope that their partner rats them out, which typ ically happens in fourth grade. During the observation year, Faith had one student who lost computer privileges at least three times. Since the student was in both her writing and reading classes, he wrote a lot of text by hand and turned it in.

PAGE 143

130 beliefs about her personal use of technology. In her own use of technologies, Faith acknowledged having access to a wide array of devices. In her personal life, each device seemed to have a distinct purpose and place. For instance, at home, she used her iP od only for music and her iPad only for reading and games. She carted the school issued MacBook between home and school, but used it almost exclusively for school business and school communication. The only device that seemed to function in both school and iPhone, although she labeled it more of an assistant for her personal life than her work life. During the sports coaching season, Faith received and sent texts about games and travel schedules throughout the school day. Her p hone was also commonly used as a timer. Outside of school, she used her phone as a camera, internet browser, GPS device, calendar, and communications tool. How Faith used her mobile devices reflected her beliefs about their purposes and usefulness. Digita l A ttitudes Digital attitudes may be difficult to separate from beliefs because attitudes are how a person applies beliefs. Attitudes include feelings or emotions about technology based on digital beliefs and expressed through behaviors. cy as a digital user. Faith rated herself slightly above average as a family had a wealth of digital devices She said: I do tons of personal stuf f as well as school stuff, internet, you know, shopping and researching, online classes I've done. My son has a Chromebook; my daughter has a I use my phone a lot similar to my computer to search in Safari or directions.... We have a Chromecast for streaming a movie on your computer and you can cast it directly to the tv. My husband has a Kindle. I read on my iPad. We stream movies, tv series, things like that.

PAGE 144

131 The wealth assessment as moderately competent. Faith understood how to use the devices she owned, and even, of her own volition, added a Chromecast device to her classroom projector so students could project slideshows from their own Chromebooks. Yet, she seemed to lack more nuanced understanding of device management. For instance, by her own admission, Faith did not understand how her iPhone and MacBook linked automatically, and she seemed uninterested in fig uring it out. Aside from what Faith said about conversations between Faith and students or parents about technology. As a resident in the community with two students in the school system, Faith undoubtedly interacted with other residents outside of school. Those interactions did not seem to be present when I was with her at school. ing technology in school. Faith believed using computers as often as possible in the classroom was important. Her positive attitude toward technology use in the classroom was demonstrated when she incorporated computer work into reading students used their Chromebooks daily to create documents for each reading unit. Students in writing block used the Chromebooks more intermittently. Students used Chromebooks for researching topics for a persuasive essay, science experiments for gr oup slideshow presentations, and personal choice topics for Ignite slideshows. These projects were entirely teacher directed; other than choosing topics, students had little flexibility with their projects. One exception would be one group of high performi ng students who create d videos for their science presentation. The students in that group were part of an enrichment class on creating videos and did not need technical support from the teacher. The tight guidelines Faith

PAGE 145

132 cated a pedagogical attitude that, overall, students are unprepared to make decisions about how to present their own learning. Faith believed children acquired basic and essential technology skills because they used computers regularly in school, so behaviors suggested an attitude that teaching digital skills was not her role. When students had difficulty with co mputer tasks, such as logging on, navigating to the right page, making a table in a document, or downloading a document, Faith often took over the computers to solve the problems for them, rather than teach problem solving skills. This indicated an attitud e that keeping the class moving along was more important the building reminded students to orally practice their group presentations o n science experiments, she did little to coach students on how to make their presentations pleasing or how to avoid plagiarism. Students copied text and pictures from websites without attribution and often without truly understanding what the text said or pictures meant. Most slideshows were unreadable because of poor color combinations, tiny fonts, and a mixture of font styles. Misspellings and misconceptions abounded in the presentations. Much could have been corrected prior to the graded presentations ha d Faith scheduled students to preview their slideshows a day before the presentations began. Instead, Faith counted on students to learn from written and oral feedback provided by classmates after the presentations had been made. Faith said she hoped stu dents would understand the power of digital devices for gathering skills with

PAGE 146

133 specific lessons and strategies. Students had many oppo rtunities to conduct online research in s, so they experienced fast and numerous results. They struggled to use the results effectively to learn. about the 50 million resources available as the result of a search suggested she believed students would know how to evaluate the hit s for the information they needed. As a result, she designed projects requiring students to use search engines for research and did not modify instruction even when students struggled with scanning the results for appropriate resources. Faith did not consider it necessary for her to teach students search and evaluation skills. The attributes of digital repertoire overlap and in repertoire has not been an attempt to capture all her knowledge, skills, aptitude, beliefs, and attitudes, but rather to give a representative picture of Faith as a digital technology user based on conversations and observations during one school year. TSE Teacher 2: Natalie Kincaid Natalie Kincaid (a pseudonym) also taught fourth grade at TSE. Her classroom was Natalie Kincaid grew up in a town approximately twice the size of Smalltown and a hundred miles away. Natalie earned her teaching degree at a suburban college in a metropolitan area. At the start of her teaching career in the early 2000s she was employed in five different districts for one to two years at each. Three elementary schools were rural and two schools were in urban areas. By the time she settled in Smalltown, Natalie had a breadth of experience in

PAGE 147

134 different school cultures and with many types of in working with second language learners. Natalie and her husband had lived in Smalltown about twelve years when this research study took place, and she had taught at TSE for most of that time. Like Faith, Natalie had a strong interest in athletics and worked with the high school sports programs. In fact, their ties to sports formed a bond between the women outside of school as well. Natalie was considered one of the technology leaders at TSE. She headed up a technology committee and, over the summer, had been active in building a STEM lab in an empty classroom with grant monies from local businesses. Decisions about what to buy for the lab were heavily influenced by hands on demonstrations the committee memb ers saw at a summer national conference. As new equipment for the lab rolled in during fall 2016, Natalie and her colleagues struggled to master how everything worked as well as how to plan effective lessons. Time for exploring new equipment sometimes was scheduled on Collaborative Fridays. HOMEROOM: Students entered the classroom at 8:05. They put their coats and backpacks on hooks inside the classroom. Two students had the task of putting the iPads on the tables (computers were assigned to tables, not students). Sometimes they remembered; sometimes the teacher did it for them. Students marked their attendance by moving small magnets to their lunch choices on a metal board near the door. One student checked the lunch choices to determine both lunch count and attendance. Occasionally students forgot to move their magnets and the student attendance monitor reminded them. The monitor computer at her desk. Two students carried t he lunch basket to the cafeteria.

PAGE 148

135 All students were expected to have their planners open on their desks so Natalie could check whether they did their homework or not. Homework was 20 minutes of reading four days a week. Sometimes the reading was done over the weekend. Parents needed to sign the planners complete the homework or get a parent signature cost $20 in grade four money. studies/science, and writing blocks were displayed from the document camera onto the white board at the front of the room. Students hand wrote these goals in their planners daily. No goals for reading or intervention block went into the planners since stud ents were sorted for those classes by ability or interest and were spread throughout the school. When students finished writing the goals, they had free time to play math games on the iPads or to chat quietly. At about 8:10, music or a ding signaled annou ncements. Students were expected to stop working or playing on computers during announcements. The announcements were given by the principal or counselor. Announcements started with the lunch menu and reminders about changes to the schedule or activities ( reminders were rare). Students said the Pledge of Allegiance and then recited the school motto to strive for high achievement Announcements t the end of announcements, students closed their planners and put the iPads in the center of the table. Most days, Natalie invited students to join her on the floor in a circle at the front. She checked in with students briefly by asking them to give thu mbs up, thumbs down, or thumbs sideways. Several students volunteered why their thumbs were in the positions they chose. When Natalie returned to teaching after the extended illness in January, she explained to students why

PAGE 149

136 she had been gone. Often, Natali leaned into her during this time. students entered the classroom, they each went to the computer cart and picked up keyboards and computer stands for the iPads at their desks. They plugged the keyboards into their iPads and set the iPads on the computer stands. For each unit, Natalie gave students curriculum provided paper packets with all the work for the unit. On th e first day of a unit, students made vocabulary cards and hole punched the cards to go on D rings. On each card, they wrote a vocabulary word, the definition provided in the curriculum packet, an example, and a non example. For the first ten minutes of rea ding class, students practiced vocabulary words with their table partners. A student held the card set on his or her forehead with the information for one card facing out to be readable by the partner. The partner read either the word or the definition alo ud and the student responded with either the definition or word. Students alternated quizzing one another. was projected from a curriculum provided slideshow onto the wh iteboard at the front of the class. Natalie also wrote the agenda on a whiteboard at the back of the classroom, and students could follow along on in the paper packets, if they wished. In a typical lesson, Natalie read two or three pages from a novel or no nfiction text aloud, student partners read another two or three pages to one another, and each student read the next two or three pages silently. Students had four questions to answer and a cloze paragraph for vocabulary practice. This work was usually han dwritten in the paper packet, although sometimes students wrote paragraph long responses to a higher level thinking question in a Google doc or in an online application called Verso.

PAGE 150

137 Students signed into Google docs after they had finished reading. When t hey had written names, the book title and week and day numbers of the unit (i.e., Minnie Belle Prater w3 day 2). They submitted their final paragraphs to the teac her. She often read the responses during class and gave students feedback. Sometimes she asked students to revise. In the Verso app ( versolearning.com/ ), the teacher reproduced the curriculum provided question on the opening page of the app. Students signed into the app and typed their reading responses. When they had submitted, they could see what everyone else had written, although the responses were anonymous. Students were identified by the order in which they submitted. and post comments on at least two peer answers. On the teacher side of the application, Natalie could see who wrote each response and comment althoug h I am not sure students were aware their anonymity was preserved just for one another and not from the teacher On one day, two students seated near me started whispering while they were reviewing comments on the Verso page. One student had noticed a res ponse to her comment that was nonsense. They discussed whether they should flag it as inappropriate and finally one student told Natalie about it. Natalie was projecting her screen and I watched as she first reviewed the nonsense comment and then brought u p the list of students to find the poster. She called the third student to her desk to discuss it with him. It turned out the poster was sitting at the same table as the two students, although he may not have known that, and was the same student who had lo st When the student asked why he had done it, he shrugged.

PAGE 151

138 Each unit seemed to last five days. At the end of a unit in early November, students were prep aring to make movie trailers about the book, but I was not present to see the process. The movie trailer app was on their iPads and they had used it in past years. In January, Natalie ended one class by showing the beginning of a movie based on the book. She found the movie clip in YouTube while students were reading and stopped the class so everyone could watch the clip on the whiteboard. She said she would try to let them see other movie clips from the book, but I was not present for any other videos. In March, students completed a novel two days before spring break. They then were asked to predict what would happen in a sequel book. Each pair of students had a Leg o kit to use to design a scene from their imagined sequel (Figure 1 1 ). On the second day, after they finished their design builds and shared them aloud, students made paper book covers for their sequel books. Figure 11 quel to the book they had read in reading class were The student working on that scene had imagined a novel in a similar style to the original book. The scene on the left depicted a fantasy novel with a forest glade (left back), lake (blue block),

PAGE 152

139 Infrequently, students presented book talks on books they had read independently. They were required to do a certain number of book talks a year. Students handwrote their book talks and read them aloud to the class. During book talks, the teacher displayed the book talk expectations or a copy of the book from the document camera. At the end of reading class, the students put their iPads in the center of the tables and returned the stands and keyboards to the tech area. BRAIN BREAK (RECESS): Students gene rally went outside for recess. Every day I was RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION/ENRICHMENT TIME: Like Faith, Natalie provided enrichment classes were boys only in the STEM lab. STEM lab experiences seemed to be loosely structured and minimally planned. In November, the boys were making robotic crickets. Each robotic kit seemed to have a variety of plastic robot parts that snapped together, lights and circuit boards, motors, batteries, and an iPad. In groups of three or four, students followed step by step slides on the iPad to build the robots. They alternated turns finding and snapping on the parts. When the robots were finished, they had a coding interface for programming the robot. Students had no instructions for the coding, so they experimented by sliding tiles into the programming track. Only two students completed their robots in time to try out the programming functions. Na talie said they would share their robots with one another the following day. The next week the configuration of the group changed. Some boys had been assigned to another class and some new boys joined the STEM lab core group. Natalie explained the student s would be learning how to create robot spiders with characteristics of real spiders. She distributed cards with the names and pictures of spiders. Teams of two or three students used the iPads to

PAGE 153

140 search for information about their spider species. They wer e looking for characteristics that made the spiders unique. The teacher gave them worksheets with guiding questions about the spiders, their habitats, and their distinctive characteristics. Natalie assumed students could extract the pertinent information f rom websites. Students used a variety of search techniques, some of which were more successful than others. For instance, one pair typed each question from the worksheet into the search box (i.e., What do camel spiders look like? What do camel spiders eat ?). The responses to their queries gave them the specific information they needed. The remaining pairs typed the name s of their spider into search boxes and followed links to specific sites (i.e., Kidzone, Wikipedia, National Geographic). The sites student s visited were often text I worked with a pair of students who insisted a webpage solely about their spider did not have the answers to any questions. Realizing the text was dense and not kid friendly, and the stud ents were feeling stressed because their peers had already begun to build their spider bots, I scanned the webpage and directed them to the area where their answers could be found. No one checked After students h ad identified the unique characteristics of their particular spiders, they were ready to put spider bots together. The following day, students continued to use the step by step instructions on the iPads to put together the spider bots. I was not present wh en they finished their spider bots. In January, Natalie was absent and substitute teachers manage d her classes The activities were given free computer time. I w as in the classroom for only a short time. Five students had

PAGE 154

141 accessed a favorite math app on the iPads and were racing through simple problems to unlock a 60 second reward game. Two students work ed on a n instructional coding program called Lightbot (Figur e 1 2 ). Lightbot introduces one coding strategy at a time and progressively gets more challenging. Figure 1 2 Two students opted to challenge themselves with the Lightbot programming app on the iPads. The goal of the app is to teach basic coding skills. Students were given a coding strategy with each screen and then a puzzle that required the strategy. The screen shown here is the final challenge of the program. The boys sat side by side and competed with one another to mast er each coding challenge One boy, who had been identified by classmates as the best with technology, showed greater adeptness at solving chal lenges than his classmate. When I joined them, they were on the final challenge. In this challenge shown in Figure 12, the lightbot needed to perform a series of steps, turns, and jumps to turn all the blue squares yellow. Students were limited in the numb er of coding symbols they could use. Successful coding required two repeating sequences. As soon as the first coder successfully solved the challenge, his screen morphed into a mode. This meant his successful code was no longer visible. He then turned to the second student insisted on solving it himself. He twice put in coding sequences that failed. While he was experimenting with codes, a third student joined them. He watched a while and

PAGE 155

142 and walked away. Meanwhile, the second coder decided he needed to start over again. This time, he stood beside the table and used his body to replicate each action he wanted the lightbot to do. With each step or turn of his body he would add a symbol to the program ming strip until he had successfully solved the challenge. slideshows about their lives. Natalie had given them a list of eight slides to complete. They were searching for pictures, typing text, and helping one another troubleshoot their shows. For instance, the students coached one another through how to save and crop pictures, insert pictures into slides, and resize or maneuver the pictures. They shared the slideshows with their Natalie and their homeroom teachers, but did not present them to the group. were designing potential apps for iPhones I was not present for the introduction. Students had two page worksheets for titling their ideas for apps, drawing their icons, and writing descriptions of the apps. They drew their icons on small stickies as well. On a hallway bulletin board near the classroom, Natalie had hung a large paper sh aped like a smart phone. Students placed the stickies on the paper phone and then hung their worksheets on the bulletin board around the paper phone. BLOCK 1 MATH: Natalie used music to transition students into math class. Either she or a student (only a select few students qualified) started music on her computer. The songs were on the iPads.

PAGE 156

143 Students had access to many computer math games. Most of the math apps on the iPads were free samples Natalie had downloaded. Most sample games were set up for solo play, although one game, Math Slide, could be used either solo or with up to four students. I never saw more than two students on the same iPad for Math Slide. To unlock the math game samples for access to more advan ced levels would have required Natalie to buy the full version of each app for each iPad (Figure 13) which was beyond her budget. For example, the iPad app Math Word Problems Multiplication and Division cost $3 per computer for full access At the high end of the app, students would have been challenged with multiplication and division problems up to 12 x 12 and 144 12. In the free version though, students could access multiplication problems up to 5x5. For many students, solving easy pro blems was ideal because their goal was solve ten problems quickly so they could play the 60 second reward games. Reward games were Pop the Balloons, Feed the Frog, Draw a Picture, and Launch the Planes, all of which focused on building hand eye coordinatio n. Figure 13. The free math sample games on the iPads covered primary level math. Note the yellow locks on three columns of more advanced problems. To unlock the advanced levels, Natalie would have needed to pay $3 for the full version on each of the 20 iPads.

PAGE 157

144 Natalie had paid for a classroom subscription to IXL Math ($250) which tracked grade money. For second semester, Natalie paid for full access to a set of curriculum based math games (cost unknown) These games did require fourth grade math skills for fractions, equations, and flexibility with number operations. During second semester, instead of playing math games on iPads, students at their tables wer e expected to collaborate on a mix and match card game with metric and US standard measurements or a card game with equivalent fractions. out their math journals, and da paid fourth grade money to students who were ready when the ding at the end of the song sounded. Or she gave table points. In second semester, the warm up was usually displayed on the whitebo ard at the front of the room so students could start solving the math challenge immediately after the song ended. The teacher led a warm up provided by the curriculum program. The curriculum pages Students wrote the warm ups in their journals or used whiteboard markers to write on their desks. While students worked on the problems and then engaged in whole class discussions, the teacher wrote on the whiteboard to capture their methods and solutions. Sometimes students were invited to write their solutions on the whiteboard and explain them. On occasion, the teacher walked around and took photos of had done and why. When students were asked to explain their ideas, they were often given a

PAGE 158

145 microphone so they could be heard. Sometimes the teacher used a microphone as well, for at least part of the class. The use of the microphone seemed inconsistent. The w arm up often took half the class time. The teacher then introduced a connected concept or extended their thinking on the strategies they had been using. Natalie displayed the work sheets through her computer or the document camera. While students worked on the assigned problems in the math journals or workbooks, Natalie paraprofessional assistants and I circulated to help students. Because Block 1 included students receiving language support, typically a bilingual paraprofessional worked with students at one table in the classroom. Halfway through the block, a second paraprofessional came into the classroom to assist. I was almost always present for Block 1 Math because th e class had the greatest support needs. Natalie welcomed my involvement with students during warm What we discovered were difference s in the ways Natalie and I solved math problems, and we learned from one another. problem solving method was drawing a picture, which was my least proficient approach I valued listening to her think alouds about problems. Math classes during my graduate program had demonstrated many problem solving methods, and I tried to ascertain how students were thinking about solving the problem s before I helped them Th en using the mathematical approach preferred by the students (i.e., draw a picture, use a timeline, identify key words, handle manipulatives, develop an algorithm, etc.), I asked questions to guide their thinking. When they were clear about what they were doing, I moved to a different table. At one point, Natalie was hanging around me while I worked with four students on an elapsed time problem. Thinking she needed my attention, I looked up. She said she was simply listening so she could learn from me. REC ESS/LUNCH: Students had 20 minutes of lunch followed by outdoor play.

PAGE 159

146 BLOCK 2 MATH: This class was a repeat of BLOCK 1with a different set of students and no paraprofessional support. The teacher rarely varied the lesson, rate of instruction, or expectati ons, even though this class was far faster to grasp ideas, more focused on the work, and more eager to try new ideas than the BLOCK 1 class. Use of the microphone was intermittent. instruction was also a repeat of BLOCKS 1 & 2 with different students and no paraprofessional the charging station before they left for specials. SPECIALS: Students seemed to be re divided for specials. Choices were technology (keyboarding practice and internet safety), art, music, physical education, and library. CLEAN UP/PACK UP/JOBS: Students took care of class jobs. Someone from each table group cleaned the table with a wet wipe. Students gathered their backpacks and coats and waited for the dismissal bell. Faith and Natalie had similar classroom set lavalier Student iPads (assigned to seats) Document camera Projector Audio set up with two microphones

PAGE 160

147 Digital repertoires constantly expand as individuals interact with digital devices, digital reperto ire depended on what Natalie said, what others said about Natalie, and what I Digital K nowle dge When Natalie was asked to rate her digital knowledge on a scale of one (lowe st) to ten (highest), she said, I think I do okay. I'm probably above the norm in our school because I use it a lot. But but there's a couple I know I need to hang o ut with more. In fact, Natalie was considered a technology leader in her school and headed up the technology committee. I am the tech leader in the school and I think that we're still trying to get new and innovative ways to get it into the classroom. I n our committee we've done book clubs and that kind of thing to try to think about what our needs are in the school. And we just talk to each other. As part of her leadership role, Natalie participated in choosing and buying technology tools for the new S TEM lab. Natalie talked about using digital tools in her personal life to follow blogs and social media, access professional development, collaborate online, and dig deeper into math content. During December, Natalie expanded her digital knowledge when she added Alexa, the voice controller for the Amazon Echo wireless speaker, and Tiles, a Bluetooth tracker device, to her collection of household digital tools.

PAGE 161

148 Digital S kil ls Social interactions with knowledgeable others using technology contribute to t he development of digital skills (Esteban Guitart, 2012; Poole, 2017) Skill acquisition starts with the first exposure to digital tools and expands continuously. chnology. in first grade when her mother guided pairs of students through a word families program on a black screen Apple computer. In later elementary school, Natalie and her classmates were using computer programs such as Oregon Trail and 3 D Body Adventure learned keyboarding and word processing. She kept her 4 H records on the famil y computer. When Natalie was in college, she took the family computer to her dorm room and used it provided an internet connected computer lab for student use. A s an adult in her own home, Natalie and her family stream ed movies, download ed books, pa id bills, listen ed to music, and play ed games. Both Natalie and her husband were likely to give their phones o r tablets to their sons for entertainment when away from home. Natalie resigned herself to paying steadily increasing prices for home internet because she did not want to function without the internet. r three game systems. One son had a Chromebook and the other an iPad as well. The family acquired new technologies for gifts, and Natalie let her sons explore the new devices she bought for the STEM lab.

PAGE 162

149 In her adult life, Natalie had taken district provided classes but preferred to learn through exploration. about something and then I'll go and explore it myself Or I'll get on to YouTube or ask Verso app. I didn't know how to use it but I signed on as a teacher and they [students] were able to go on and get into it. Natali e also learned new skills when she attended national and state conferences during the summer. In fact, she had learned about the online application Verso at a national conference. Natalie had a reputation among the staff as a technology leader. During F riday collaboration days, she often signed up to present a skill, online application, or new digital Natalie as someone who knew technology well, not even her son. Natalie and technology in 2016 2017. iPads, as part of a new one to one computer initiative at the school. Students were familiar with iPads from previous years. However, the iPads did not access computer based curriculum assessments. For those, Natalie had to borrow Chromebooks from her fourth grade co teachers. N atalie typically told students to choose another computer from the center of the table and then placed the malfunctioning tablet in the charging cabinet. On one occasion, Natalie discovered several iPads were overheated and low on power. She looked at the task bar and realized one app had remained active after students put their iPads aside. She cautioned students to close out of the apps before returning the computers to the center of the table.

PAGE 163

150 Digital A ptitude oneer among staff, meaning she jumped in to try out new technology devices or applications when she became aware of them. She was not only excited about adding the Alexa device and Tiles to her household digital collection, but she also speculated about wh ether the tools could transfer to an educational use for her classroom. She could imagine herself trying to incorporate an x box video gaming system into her classroom in the future. Many of the new digital tools acquired for the STEM lab were delivered a fter school started, which gave Natalie and other technology committee members little time to become knowledgeable about how to use the tools effectively. Although Natalie had only a rudimentary knowledge of new digital tools, she still taught with the new kits and equipment during enrichment classes. She and the students learned about the tools together. Digital B eliefs Beliefs develop through experience and regulate our conduct (Us Domnech & Nescolarde Selva, 2016) digital topics related to families, schooling, an d her personal life. As a person digital devices. She believed a majority of her students had access to digital devices at home, although she acknowledged they might not all have i nternet : I would say 80% of our kids in fourth grade [have internet ready technology at home]. get [internet] onto a device because their parents don't want to pay bu t they have something [some device]. cell phones or Smart phones. I hear a lot of kids say they have readers, Kindles or Nooks. ones at home.

PAGE 164

151 gave their children cell phones for protection, and fourth grade needed to honor that, but she also knew from experience students could abuse the av ailability of a phone in school: We don't want to exclude [cell phones] totally because what if something did happen. If something happened in our classrooms we want kids to feel safe. We want parents to feel safe. You never know. So, we just want [the cell phones] off so they're not texting parents and telling them things like I'm not feeling good. Because that did happen this year. I'm not feeling good and then [the parents] call me saying my daughter is not feeling good us while they're at school so we can support them as much as we can. Natalie said she often communicated with parents through texts and phone calls. The previous year, feedback on the parent survey indicated the school had too many parent log ins and too many places for families to look for information, so the school had simplified information handling. Natalie had de activated the fourth grade Facebook page and placed the information on the all scho ol Facebook site. Parent education about how technology is used in school was another area Natalie mentioned The school and district ha d been proactive about keeping the community informed According to the district integration specialists, the district had in the past sponsored evening curriculum nights where parents could learn about the technology based resources teachers and students could access. Natali e commented: I think there is some fear of new technology. I know I've heard some parents are very scared about some of the newer virtual reality kind of things that they have fears behind what we're doing. As a district, we provide parent meetings like th rough the libraries and stuff where they can go in and they can hear about what we're doing in class. We always try to incorporate technology in any of our math nights. We're really good about taking things to the community, like we'll go down to the board and we'll show them what we're

PAGE 165

152 doing. We have our F acebook site. We feel like we're educating them. And I think kids are seeing it in their homes and it's more accepted than it was eight years ago. As part of the community, Natalie overheard parent con or shopping in local markets. She also had opportunities to allay parent fears or share her technology vision with community members in informal conversations. ology. Natalie expressed the believed technology should be used at any time you could possibly think of. I think it should be used in the classroom. I think tha t we have the potential to be paperless. We have the When Natalie considered what technology contributed to the classroom, she thought about preparing students for the real world and increasing student engagement: It's getting these kids to be ready for workforce and school readiness and college the real world, it starts here. Getting them trained and to be innovati ve in their thinking engagement too. use in the classroom. She believed engagement in creased when she used technology in instruction and when students used technology to demonstrate their knowledge. Engagement is huge, I'd say even for myself when I'm trying to present or we're going to use technology. Engagement is huge. For them to be ab le to be engaged in what they're mean I think some things are more engaging than others, but I think that's what we really get caught up on and that's our interest. That 's why we want to use it more because we want it more engaging. in

PAGE 166

153 use of technology a motivator for her own work. I did not ask Natalie what digital skills she though t students needed nor did she bring it up independently. When she talked about student engagement in lessons where she uses technology, she said, I feel like that there are no limits, I don't think, with technology, as long as we teach our kids digital citizenship. Digital citizenship was considered the responsibility of the computer lab paraprofessional and Natalie did teach reading students how to write comments and she cautioned them it was unacceptable to just write Natalie enthusiastically tried new technologies. Her introduction to Alexa was through her parents, who then bought her one for her household. She used a car phone before mobile phones were available and cell phones as soon as they came out. Her smartphone had been a 2009 acquisition, which was about two years after the initial release of iPhones. Natalie was also eager t o try out the new digital tools they bought for the STEM lab. Digital A ttitudes Our actions reveal our attitudes, which are built on our beliefs. Ideally, stated bel iefs and visible actions align, although at times constraints can alter our actions so the y no longer align with our beliefs (Ajzen, 1991) Natalie demonstrated enthusiasm for new digital devices and applications. At home, she used her phone and MacBook regularly for household tasks, entertainment, and pro fessional growth. She followed educator blogs, which she thought

PAGE 167

154 helped her improve professionally. At home, s he was excited about the acquisition of the Alexa device and Tiles and wondered how they could be incorporated into instruction. These actions ali gned with what Natalie said about herself as an explorer of new technologies and a person who found technology personally engaging. Natalie learned digital skills by trying things out on her own. She explored websites and tools on her own time and evalua ted tools for how they might promote learning. When the principal gave her a list of online sites, Natalie explored them. Natalie encouraged her sons to be enthusiastic about technology as well. children used digital devices before and after school They arrived with Natalie at least an hour before school, and both children spent that time on iPads or Chromebooks. Mostly they played games while they waited to go outside for before school recess. After school, the children were generally there for an additional hour, unless their father picked them up for sports, and they used digital devices then as well. Natalie had been taken aback, and perhaps hurt, when one of her students texted her mo ther about not feeling well and did not let Natalie know. When Natalie talked about the incident, her voice revealed strong emotion. The misunderstanding had led to the school based decision students could not have their phones on or visible during school. student wore a Gizmo Pal watch that communicated with his parents. Natalie was quick to direct him to turn it off and put it in his backpack. Natalie may have overestimated Natalie lived close to the school and, because both Natalie and her husband were professional s,

PAGE 168

155 neighborhood and, based on conversations I overheard, probably had equivalent levels of digital probably had very little access to digital tools other than game systems. Their parents may have used cell phones provided by their employers, but the parents were not necessarily well schooled in digital reached as many parents as she assumed. s pedagogical attitude about using technology in school. Natalie had stated digital technologies should be used as often as possible in the classroom. It is true she used the document camera, projector, curriculum supplied slideshows, and a digital microph one regularly solving work to display for whole class discussion. However, as will be described below, she rarely directed students to use technology in the process of learnin g For half the year, during the transitions between classes, students were permitted to use the iPads to play math games, but the computers were set aside once instruction began. Math assessments were computerized; yet students were required to write the ir problem solving processes on paper to be submitted along with the digital assessments. In reading, students used the iPads to type reading responses and, on one occasion, to design movie trailers for the books they had read, but most of their work was d one with pencils on paper. Not only were students minimally involved with using digital tools, but the tasks students completed required little creativity. Students did the work, but whether students were more engaged with technology than without was hard to discern. In contrast to classroom use of technology, in the enrichment classes, Natalie did try to incorporate digital tools often. The two robot based projects I saw with the all boys class may

PAGE 169

156 have followed a cookbook style, but for students who fini shed early, Natalie did encourage exploration with coding. Two boys had about five minutes to code and explore the use of sounds and lights with their robots. The most student controlled project was when students (all boys) created slideshows about their lives and interests. While the organization of the slides was teacher designed, the boys had freedom to work creatively on each slide. This project was one time when I saw and heard students actively consult one another to build their technology skills an d to solicit ideas for creative ways to present their information. On this project, engagement appeared high. Natalie explain ed that in previous years, she had used technology more often with her students, including having them create movies of math proces ses. This is kind of a weird year because we have a new math curriculum. In the past, I tried to think about how I can get every kid every problem and every kid involved in what I'm doing. With the introduction of a new math curriculum, much of what Nata lie had been able to do in the past was no longer appropriate. She believed she needed to teach the math curriculum with fidelity during the first year while she figured out how technology could support the curriculum. The constraint of a new math curricul um may have caused the misalignment of beliefs and practices in math classes. students took reading unit assessments on their iPads, Natalie printed their work and sent students next door to pick the papers up from the printer. Since the assessments were taken and submitted online, it was never clear why the assessments had to be printed as well. Also, Natalie printed and copied curriculum provided reading unit pack ets, about ten pages each, for her reading students while Faith had students create online documents to record their reading tasks.

PAGE 170

157 This may have been a constraint imposed by having iPads, which did not easily access Google docs and required keyboards. N needs for knowledge about digital safety. She was aware the students received instruction on safety in their technology special, and she did not build on that knowledge during instruction in class. Natalie did not ask students to conduct research, so she may not have been aware of One of the reasons Natalie liked the concept of using the Alexa device in school was her observation of her own children interacting with the devices. She said her children were forced to use complete sentences and to be specific about what they wanted Alexa to find for them. She indicate d elementary students struggle with both skills and the use of an Alexa device would reinforce those skills. leadership on technology integration. As head of the technology committee, she had had opportunities to attend conferences, conduct book studies, and investigate new digital tools and applications. Yet, her in class practices of integration did not seem in line with her belief she was a technology leader in the school. She may have known more about new technologies and how others used technologies, but she did not seem to translate that knowledge into practice. e captured only a portion of one does not reflect changes in practices that may result from increased familiarity with the new math curriculum and the new te chnologies in the STEM lab.

PAGE 171

158 Composite Description of Fourth Grade Students Composite Summary of Technologies used by Six Students The TSE fourth grade had about 55 students divided over three classrooms. I spent my time in two of the fourth grade classroo ms. Because the teachers platooned to teach math, writing, and social studies/science, I interacted with all fourth graders although I interviewed only six students. Based on the student interviews, I compiled a list of the technology devices students owne d or used outside of school (See Table 6). Of the six students, one fourth grader reported he currently had no access to technology outside of school. Aside from game systems, most students had only one or two functioning pieces of digital equipment for t heir personal use. Five students talked about their parents having some level of internet service, but only one student was connected wirelessly to a home network. Several students mentioned expense as the reason for not having internet. Three of the six students interviewed had phones. They used their phones for texts, phone calls, and games. None had wireless connectivity enabled on their phones. Only one of the three had internet access at home. Of the three students who had phones, two students had re ceived theirs during the fourth grade school year. One student had a phone because her parents were divorced. The parents decided she needed to be able to reach either of them at her convenience. One student had been given the phone as a gift from his fath student actually had two phones, a basic phone for emergency phone calls only and an old smartphone with no cell service on which the student played previously downloaded games.

PAGE 172

159 Table 6. Fourth Gra Topics Devices Luna Parker Night Shadow Rebecca Rob Trooper Home language English Spanish English English Spanish English Gender F M M F M M First Computing Experience Age 4, Facetime Kinder garten tech lab Grade 2 class room iPod Age 6, Tablet X Box game system Cannot remember First School Experience Grade 3 tech lab Kinder garten tech lab Grade 2 tech lab Grade 2 classroom Kinder garten tech lab Kindergarten tech lab Home Access Camera Desktop compu ter Family Virused Ereader Kindle Fire Kindle Fire Game system Playstation, Wii U, Nintendo DSI Wii U, X Box 360 X Box, X Box 360 Playstation X Box 360 iPod Phone Gift; not internet enabled Not internet enabled Two, not internet enabled Portable DVD player yes Tablet Non functional Two, no internet Non functional Fitbit Does not use Laptop Chromebook Internet no no no no no yes Only one student had a wealth of technologies available. Both parents were in were wageworker s (Wuthnow, 2013) or unemployed and looking for work

PAGE 173

160 Composite TSE Student Digital Repertoire Because my interactions with individual students about their technology backgrounds interviews and my classroom observations to create a composite student digital repert oire. Digital K nowledge Fourth grade students did not consider themselves strong technology users. They believed one particular fourth grader, who took advanced math classes at the middle school, was the best technologist. Mostly, the students expected c lassroom teachers to problem solve technology issues for them. The students identified game systems with specific names Xbox, Xbox 360, Playstation 4, Wii, Wii U, etc. and most owned at least one system. They often lacked differentiated vocabulary fo r other digital equipment. The word computer referred to any desktop system, laptop meant any computing device with a shell and integrated keyboard, and tablet referred to any mobile touch device, excluding phones. At school, because the teachers distingui shed between Chromebooks and iPads, the students made the distinction s as well, but their home devices were almost always called tablets even when they were iPads. Despite the nearly daily use of document cameras in their classrooms, students seemed unawar e the document camera was a technology and had a name. They did not recognize the word e reader although they sometimes knew Kindle They were not sure what digital cameras or portable DVD players were. Digital S kills The fourth grade students were born in 2007, the year iPhones and Kindles were first released. Their earliest experiences with technology were game systems and family events such as Facetiming or Skyping with relatives. The students who attended TSE starti ng in preschool

PAGE 174

161 had their first computing experiences as kindergarteners when they went to the technology lab. grade. Those experiences also happened in technolog y lab. Based on information from district IT staff, the primary role of the technology lab keyboarding. Sometimes students had game time during technology lab as well. The students were permitted to play games hosted by ABCya! ( abcya.com/ ), which has educational games through grade five, or Cool Math Games ( coolmath games.com/ ), a compilati on of educational games free during the school day. Overall, fourth grade students had underdeveloped digital skills, except in game systems. Students talked extensively about both online games and video games. They compared favorite games, shared hints about advancing levels, and recommended new games. When they visited one another after school and on weekends, they played games. But students often lacked basic digital skills. They asked for help with logging on, copying and pasting, locating files, a nd editing pictures. Most often, asking for such help resulted in either a student or teacher solving the problem rather than teaching the skill. taught to make tables projects. Both Faith and Natalie had students respond to reading assignments in Verso, a comme nting feature of an online application. Natalie taught students what constituted acceptable responses and comments.

PAGE 175

162 Technology lab lessons did not cover effective s trategies for online searches, the causes and prevention of computer viruses, and the importance of citing sources for pictures or text they copied from websites (Dede, 2010; Eshet Alkalai, 2004) Students did not seem to acquire the knowledge in the classrooms either. Students who performed academically a t grade level had enrichment opportunities during the half hour intervention time. They often had opportunities to use computers in more advanced ways in classrooms and in the STEM lab. A few students, identified as gifted and talented, worked with the dis trict IT specialist to make videos. They had more digital skills than their peers and were the ones who solved problems for their classmates. d the opportunities gifted and talented students had to develop more adv enrichment class, in early January while Natalie was absent, the students had completed their writing for publication unit. Faith treated the thirty minute enrichment time as limited ch oice time for students. They were offered the option of reading independently, continuing to write on going projects, or draw on paper with markets and crayons. Three girls decided to make a movie of a play script they had plotted but not completely writte n. The girl directing the movie and filming with an iPad was one of the students who had attended gifted and talented classes. research projects and slideshows, one set o f boys, two of whom had attended gifted and talented classes, decided to embed videos in their slideshow. They borrowed an iPad and went to the hall for filming. Their slideshow was the only instance I saw where students creatively developed a presentation

PAGE 176

163 Digital A ptitude Students expressed enthusiasm for using digital tools in their classes. Rebecca indicated computers make learning easier: Rob also talked about how muc h he liked using technology at school. He believed he had more opportunity to use technology at school than students at other schools: I like having technology because like it's fun and usually they told us that we were very glad at school to have that t echnology. Most kids at schools don't really have any technology. And they said that at this school every single kid in this school could use a technology device. TSE students practiced keyboarding in technology lab starting in kindergarten. This meant almost all fourth grade students had typing competence, although none of the students was ure in using technology in the classrooms. Luna cited typing or, even better, using touch screens as reasons to like using technology: I like using technology because it hurts my hand when I write too much but when I type like it] because I just have to tap what I want [on the iPad]. Rebecca also considered typing preferable to handwriting: I feel like when I handwrite, it takes a long time because you have to go from writing your paper and looking at another thing to see like your reading and stuff but on the computer you can just go and type and you can look over and see your reading and type Along a similar line, when Rob explained why he liked using Kahoot, an online game like quiz application, he mentioned his preference for clicking on an answer instead of writing it down:

PAGE 177

164 I think it's really fun and like instead of saying out the answer on a piece of paper, you just click on it and it'd be right there. computers suggested confidence they would be successful when given a computer based task. Students also showed willingness to acknowledge when they needed coaching or assistance. In class, students spoke up about difficulties logging in, accessing sites, and managing pictures. When Rebe ceased, she brought it to me for problem solving. An entourage accompanied her and told me the ideas they had explored already. When I restored the screen to standard size, seve ral students asked me to teach them the steps for future reference. Digital B eliefs Because developmentally, fourth graders are at the concrete operational stage (Piaget as discussed in McLeod, 2015) most fourth grade students in the study did not think abstractly about technology use in the classroom. This means they were not yet imagining the ways technology could be used differently from what they had experienced so far in their lives. In fact, students struggled to remember much about school technology use earlier than third grade. Since their technology experience s had most often involved games (at home) and documents (at school), their reflections on how technology should be used at school did not deviate from repeating those events. However, one boy expressed a wish students could change their homepage images to reflect their interests and personalities. Apparently in third grade, students had been allowed to change their landing pages, but problems with students using inappropriate language and pictures led to a school based decision to outlaw the practice. I wo

PAGE 178

165 to keep homepages standardized was not also influenced by the structure of fourth grade. Since fourth grade had two computer types, Chromebooks and iPads, and the devices were assigned to seats in each classroom, chang ing the homepage may have no longer been feasible. On Chromebooks, students had accounts specific to them that travelled across Chromebook devices. On iPads, students signed in only when they went to an online space such as Google Classroom or Verso th at r equired registration. Chromebook accounts did not cross over onto iPad accounts. Digital A ttitudes Since attitudes can be discerned from what people do, watching students interact with technology gave a slightly clearer picture about what they believed. F or the most part, students complied with teacher directed technology use. But when given a few minutes to choose their own activities, students demonstrated what they believed was important. The most common student initiated technology use was playing gam es. Students paid fourth grade reward money for the privilege of staying inside to play games on their Chromebooks They settled quickly in math and grabbed the iPads so they could play math games. When Natalie changed from iPad math games to vocabulary ca rd sorts at their tables, at least half the students took the entire transition time to settle and did not participate in the card sorts. During specials, I often overheard students in the technology lab ask whether they could play games. And, when Natalie was absent, students in her intervention block got excited that they could play games for half an hour. The few times I saw students breaking technology rules in classrooms always involved students playing games when they were supposed to be transitioning between classes. Students showed excitement and enthusiasm when teachers used Kahoot for a formative assessment quiz. Kahoot has the look and feel of a game because of the nicknames students

PAGE 179

166 chose, fast pace of the activity, bright answer button colors, a nd competitive scoring shown after each question. During Kahoot activities, students often shouted out their exultation or groaned in frustration. Students declared the Kahoot activities fun. Summary Games and game like acti vities excited student s more than any other activity both at home and school, and m ost game Based on the student interviews, many students did not have access to much technology outside of school, though. They learned their digital skills at school. In reading and writing classes, the most common activity was creating or responding to items with typed text. Faith also planned research projects where students created group and individual slideshows. Students who attended enrichment classes, rather than remedial classes, had exposure to more digital experiences than their classmates especially the boys who were involved in the STEM lab activities Students in the gifted and talented program had the most in school opportunities to learn digital skills. to use technology both in and out of school influenced what students knew about how digital devices could be used. TSE Transactions Around Technology repertoire, social interactions within a school or classroom around the use of technology can highlight the digital repertoires of practices within a community. Faculty Transactions Faith and Natalie we re always in their classrooms when I arrived each morning, even though I timed my arrival for one hour before school started. They often were leaving just when I did, which was typically an hour after students left. This means I spent from 7:00 am until 5: 00

PAGE 180

167 pm with them. I was present for some of the technology focused transactions among them or other faculty. The three fourth grade teachers depended on one another for problem solving. For omputer while Natalie taught Faith how to find the online form for requesting intervention assistance for students. Later that day, all three fourth grade teachers collaborated on wordsmithing their requests for assistance for students. On another morni classroom, the other fourth grade teacher, Kayla Richardson, came to ask for help with a printing problem. When none of the ideas put forth worked, Principal Johnson suggested calling the dist know what had gone wrong or how she could prevent it in the future. Both Faith and Natalie used their phones throughout the school day. Faith received and sent texts about athletic events during her coaching season and, during planning time, often called or texted her high school daughter who was finished with her school day. At lunch, Faith used her cell phone to catch up on Facebook posts and play short home v ideos for colleagues. students were at specials Because Natalie had a class set of iPads, other faculty sometimes asked to borrow devices for their instruction. O n one occasion, a faculty member interrupted instruction to ask Natalie to show her how to use a particular application and then to borrow six devices. Later that same teacher returned the devices and, embarrassed, admitted she had not realized the applica tion was

PAGE 181

168 internet based and not iPad specific. She had a set of Chromebooks in her room she could have used for the activity. On another occasion, a specialist expressed frustration that the iPad she had borrowed for a high needs student seemed to make hi s work harder. Natalie responded that she had wondered why they had chosen an iPad when the student needed a keyboard for doing the computer based tasks they had in mind. e usually one scrambled after school to locate a missing device and finally realized it had not been returned by a specialist because the student was not finished with the projec t. The specialist had not realized the computer needed to be charged overnight. When Natalie wanted students to take online math assessments, she borrowed The sa me was true for taking state assessments. Principal Johnson modeled technology use across the school. When the 3 D printer was class, printing a sample and e xploring how students could get involved. When conducting an classroom and typed her evaluation of Faith during instruction. The principal also came into the clas srooms either before school or during fourth grade planning to ask Faith or Natalie to try out online applications or brainstorm technology topics for professional development. Over time, Natalie and Kayla began to see me as a resource and technology tr ouble shooter. Natalie asked me for help when a drop down list on a webpage was too long for her to

PAGE 182

169 see all the choices. I showed her how to hide toolbars to make more space on her computer er she asked me to help her instructions. Kayla sent students to me to solve a problem with a Chromebook on which the screen was magnified. I showed Kayla and the stude nts how to find the accessibility features and turn off magnification. Even Principal Johnson asked me to help them figure out how to use some of the new equipment in the STEM lab. Teacher Student Transactions How teachers interact with students reveals their understandings about technology use in the classroom. Some transactions can also demonstrate how the digital repertoires of practice adjust over time in a classroom or school. In this section, only a representative number of digital exchanges are inc luded. Others will be used in the discussion of affordance s of technology. Digital practices in place. Some classroom digital practices were in place before I started observations at the school. The school had a standardized technology policy posted in ev ery classroom. The policy covered expectations for student behavior with digital tools. During my observation periods at the school, one student willfully broke the technology policies several times and had weeks and months when he could not use a computer at school. His willful disregard for the technology policy was the only situation requiring intervention. One other immediately when the teacher reminded the cl ass as a whole it was time iPads were put away. She spoke privately with him at least once to warn him he was in danger of losing computer privileges.

PAGE 183

170 students who brought ce ll phones to school turned them off and placed them on the credenza at room, stu dents applied for the jobs of computer handlers and were paid in fourth grade money. In the morning at the beginning of homeroom, two students were responsible for unplugging the Chromebooks and placing them on the tables. Two different students collected the Chromebooks and plugged them in during the fifteen minute end of day routine. students were in math, two students collected, organized, and plugged in the iPads before they went to specials. The two students often took as much as ten minutes to get the iPads organized and put away. Instructed practices. Faith and Natalie did not introduce new practices while I was observing in their classrooms. However, for the Ignite presentations, Faith had to teach students how to set slides to automatically advance every fifteen seconds. The newest Spanish speaking arrival participated in jou rnal writing during writing class by typing his entries in Spanish on a Google d ocument. I noticed he was growing increasingly frustrated during the typing and asked if I could help. At that point, the student had been in the U.S. for only three weeks, so he lacked the English vocabulary to explain, but he pointed to the screen where he had written ninyos where he wanted to type nios When it was clear no one else had a solution, the student let me search in the Google d ocument toolbar for symbols. I found

PAGE 184

171 instructed on the process, he shared it with the teachers. Negotiated practices. In a community of practice, members negotiate new or modified ways to engage i n practices (Rogoff et al., 2015) One example of an in class modification of a digital practic reading class lined up in the hall outside her classroom until permitted to enter. On ce the classroom was almost empty of the previous class, Natalie would start the music files on her computer and then walk across the room to signal permission for students to enter. But one day Natalie was already at the classroom door holding a convers ation with a colleague when the transition began. When her classroom was empty, she signaled the lined up students to enter but she had not yet been to her desk to start the music file. A student asked whether she should begin the music for the teacher. Na talie agreed and the student crossed to the of students, and that time, another student received permission to key the music. The modification of the practice seemed to empower students in that class. If Natalie was busy and not close to her computer to access the music file, one of the students would start it for her with or without asking. This modified practice, which applie d to only one section of math teacher rushed into the classroom and angrily demanded the students turn the music off. She

PAGE 185

172 Students were unable to convince the substitute this was standard practice and, because none of the other classes had the same d igital practice of starting the music when the teacher was busy, the substitute believed the students were taking advantage of her rather than trying to follow a routine digital practice. The practice of starting the music file was the most visible modific reading class. Natalie had directed students to write their reading responses in Verso. Then Natalie realized the three st udents had not been added to her roster, did not have Verso log ons, and were inexperienced with Verso. Natalie pulled the three students aside to coach them on logging in and using the online site. She also modeled the type of response she would expect th the three students took their computers to Natalie to get feedback on what they had written. Natalie had a practice of allowing some students to use her computer. In one math class, she asked the top student to manipulate an online calculator as classmates explained how they would solve a broken calculator problem. Once, when the music started to repeat, she asked a student to close the file on the teacher computer She also once asked her son to re show the slides for a math warm up. Occasionally, a student sat at the teacher computer to take an assessment. controlled) and confined to t he top students academically (privileged). Even with the music files, only four r.

PAGE 186

173 Faith did not all ow students to use her computer, but students had tacit permission to handle the timers and document camera. Faith placed either her phone or a digital timer on the document camera to time the five minute spelling practice In one class, a student took the timer from the document camera. Faith told him to replace it, reset the time, and use the digital timer instead. She explained later the classroom practice was for students to freely borrow a timer for a two minute spelli ng activity. In the case I observed, the student had borrowed the wrong timer. anner, and then took the planner to her desk so she could catch up on the goals for the days she had been absent. Faith explained this was another common digital practice. The availability of the I) were not always aware when the planner had been removed from the document camera by a student. Not all digital practices were adopted by the community (Rogoff et al., 2015) In one case, while the class waited for two students to get logged onto their computers, Faith Hughes original statement, using the word window Distinguishing between window and tab was not adopted into the digital language practice. Natali expected students to reinforce math skills through the use of math games before class. S tudents subverted the practice to meet their own purposes. For many students, the few minutes of math games were opportunities to play, not extend math knowledge. S ome students chose easy levels of games, such as addition facts to five, so they could quickly get to the 60

PAGE 187

174 second, non math, reward games. Other students chose games where they enjoyed funny responses to their correct or incorrect answers. One game, Mat h Slide (Figure 14) allowed up to four students to compete to answer number fact problems. Problems were posed as images or equations. Each student had eleven answer tiles and tried to be the first to slide the correct answer tile into the center pad. The game was designed to support automatic fact recall. Yet all the students I observed were simply sliding any tiles to the center as quickly as possible. If an answer was wrong, it returned to the was right and the first to the center, th e student got a point. Students did not even try to read and answer the posed problems so winning or losing was clearly arbitrary. I was surpris ed when students who lost the game also lost their tempers. Figure 1 4 In this picture, the correct answer for the Math Slide problem wa s 18, which the student on the right was preparing to slide to the middle It was probabl e the student on the left also ha d the correct answer, in which case, the point went to the student wh o slid the answer to the middle first. Based on the number of answers left for each student, the student on the right wa s ahead in the game. both hands to slide tiles in quick successio n, a practice common when students were trying to win, not solve the problems. After I had observed the students using the math games, I talked with Natalie about how students were using the games. She indicated she could not afford subscriptions to the iPad apps to unlock higher levels of the games that would have engaged the students in more math thinking. After the holidays, Natalie paid for challenging math games from the curriculum based

PAGE 188

175 website. For about two weeks, many students tried the new games even though the games were difficult. Still, when not successful in mastering the games after several tries, most students either went to simpler games with faster rewards or changed to a game purpose rather than a math accuracy purpose. Natalie replaced iPad math game time with off line card matching activities for groups of students to complete at their tables. Student to Student Interactions Every person has an individual digital repertoire that continually expands through transactions with digital d evices and applications (Esteban Guitart & Moll, 2014) In classroom settings, the transactions among students and teachers around digital devices result ed in changes to individual digital repertoires and the classroom community digital repertoire (Rosenblatt, 1988; Sutherland et al., 2004) Many interactions and transactions between and am ong students were examples of one student helping another with a technology skill. Interactions without transactions. Some interactions had little effect on digital repertoires because the helper completed a task for another student without explanation. Fo r to the applicat ion without any discussion about what they were doing or why. stumped about how to log into Verso. Another student at the table took the Chromebook, logged onto the app, and returned the computer to the classmate. The classmate was still confused about what was going on, so a second student took the Chromebook, found the right webpage for the activity, and returned the computer.

PAGE 189

176 Other interactions among students about tec hnology use often followed a similar path: a student indicated confusion and a classmate intervened by taking the computer, doing the task, and returning the computer. The drawback of these silent take overs was the lack of knowledge exchanged among the pa rticipants. The skilled student continued to be skilled and the recipient continued to be unclear about what had happened. Transacted interactions. Sometimes what seemed to be a one way interaction evolved into transactions with the power to change digita find Chrome on her iPad. A classmate took the iPad and swiped through about four screens, an action with little potential to teach a skill. But then the classmate classmate typed chr and the Chrome icon came up. While the transaction might have had more teaching power had the original student conducted the search, still the verbal coac hing and physical demonstration of searching had the potential to transfer a digital skill to students within hearing distance. the computer and quickly did the copy and pasting for the first student. Moments later, the same student asked the same question. This time the classmate stopped, coached the student, and taught the skill. Rarely did student s bring new technology to scho ol, but one student twice wore a Verizon GizmoPal watch a gift from his father. On the first day, he was showing it off to other students, none of whom had seen one before. Natalie noticed the knot of students around him and to know much about how it worked and I never saw him use it. Essentially the GizmoPal is a device for two way phone calls, is limited to four contacts, and

PAGE 190

177 does not have internet. Natalie reminded the student phone device s belonged in backpacks. The seco alarm started beeping. The student turned off the device and put it in his backpack. The introduction of an innovative device gave the student status among his clas smates. It also added information to the collective digital repertoire in his class. Sometimes a digital transaction involved several students contributing disparate troubleshoot. They realized the speakers had been unplugged. Then they recognized the speakers had also been turned off. Troubleshooting, locating the speakers, finding the correct plug receptacle on the computer, and locating the volume button on one spe aker were all collaborative problem solving tasks with the potential to contribute new knowledge to all three students. Before school one day, three boys discussed games they like to play. One boy identified a particular game on ABCya, a site students we r e permitted to use at school. The second boy liked the same game and then named another. The first boy then asked about the monsters on the game second boy explain ed how the monsters could help players in the game. The third boy named another game he enjoyed playing. This discussion ended when it was time to transition to another class. The conversation illustrated how students shared knowledge with one another in c asual In another casual conversation with two of the same boys, one student came into the downloa

PAGE 191

178 The boys moved away from me as they continued talking about viruses and how they work. Although students in TSE we re taught digital med ia lessons from Common Sense Media, a quick search of the curriculum found no information about risks of downloading programs and warning to other students, espec ially since the student was overheard later sharing the information with a number of other classmates. three writing classes, groups of four students worked collaborativ ely to create slideshows for their presentations on science topics. Many students seemed to have little experience with creating slideshows. I observed as students made changes to fonts, backgrounds, photos, and text that overrode the work of their partner s. Often two students worked on the same slide simultaneously, so that a change by one student was countered almost immediately by the other their computers as malfunctioning. Then as they continued experiencing unexpected changes to the slides, they began talking to one another and puzzling aloud about what was happening. A few students thought they solved the problems when they made copies of the slideshows an d worked on their own copies. The fallacy of this solution showed up when the master slideshow had none of their ideas or work. In these examples, the function of the slideshow application

PAGE 192

179 Summary of Interactions Around Technology Differences exist among teacher teacher, teacher student, and student student interactions about technology. When teachers interacted with other teachers, the purpose was generally to solve problems or share new to ols or applications. Teachers gained knowledge from one another about solving problems with technology devices, ways to use applications, and administrative tasks. Their exchange of digital knowledge was generally confined to the business of teaching with technology. Teacher student interactions most often centered on community practices with digital tools in the classroom. Teachers imposed digital practices, and those practices were sometimes e teachers explicitly taught students how to log on to sites, how to use Google documents, and how to post comments on websites. They did not teach technology skills such as copy and paste, designing effective slideshows, working collaboratively on documen ts and slides, and citing sources for pictures and text, skills the students seemed to lack. Student student interactions had the greatest potential to influence individual digital repertoires because frequently students asked peers for help with technol ogy skills. Whether the helper took a fixer or coaching role impacted how much information was exchanged among classmates and how broadly the information was disseminated.

PAGE 193

180 CHAPTER V THE CONTEXTS OF RURAL JUNCTION AND RURAL ELEMENTARY ACADEMY Rural areas are underrepresented in research literature, and rural education comprises only a fraction of what is published (Ar nold et al., 2005) Much of the education research that includes rural areas fails to address ruralness as a contextual factor that influences the educational setting. In fact, ruralness has often been presented as a deficit as compared to urban and sub urban contexts, rather than an identity feature that distinguishes rural from other types of communities (Sherwood, 2001) In this chapter, I describe the ruralness of the Rural Junction community and its local school Rural Elementary Academy (REA) as a contextual component of the educational boundaries. Because of the distinctive features of the context, Rural Elementary Academy may not resemble many, if any, other schools, even rural schools. All names of places and people are pseudonyms to protect identities. Rural Junction Before settlers came to Rural Junction in the 1850s, the region had been populated by Native American groups But by the early 1900s, Rural Junction served as a trading center for area farmers and ranchers. Both auto and railway passengers found Rural Junction a convenie nt stop half way between two thriving cities. However, the community itself remained small. Today, the U.S. Census Bureau recognizes Rural Junction as a Census Designated Place y name but are not census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_place.html#cdp paragraph 2). Rural Junction has a local post office and its name appears on maps, b ut the village has never been incorporated or grown large enough to sustain a local government.

PAGE 194

181 little more than a dozen irregularly defined blocks of houses and cottage bu sinesses (Figure 15) Rural Junction sat at the crossroads of a county road that carried outdoor sports enthusiasts into a national forest and a four lane highway that served as a conduit between two thriving population centers of more than 50,000 people o nly a dozen miles away in either direction Figure 15. Downtown Rural Junction. The brown building in the center was a general store. Local restaurants were located along the two lane road in the direction the bicyclists were traveling. Traffic along the two lane road was often heavy as sports enthusiasts headed for the national forest. Rural Junction r esidents said the contrasts of eateries in the village a biker bar, a pizza take out, and a five star restaurant village were modest single home dwellings while the surrounding countryside was quickly being develo ped to include gated communities and horse properties for wealthy commuters. Rural Elementary Academy (REA) History Rural Elementary Academy (REA) took pride in its long history. Shortly after settlers populated the area in the mid 1800s, residents built a wood framed, one room school for twenty children in grades one through eight. This became the first school district in the county (2013,

PAGE 195

182 Rural Junction County Research Center 1 ). By the late 1800s, the school was rebuilt as a stone one room school with an outhouse and wood stove. In the mid 1900s, a new s chool was built which has since been expanded to accommodate the current K 6 population of REA. In the mid 1950s, the Rural Junction district consolidated about 20 small districts across the county to cr eate what has become a very large county wide organization (2013, Rural Junction County Research Center 2 ). Of the almost fifty elementary schools in the district, 85% were classified as Suburb, Large. The remaining 15%, including REA, were placed in Town or Rural classifications (NCES). REA qualified as a Rural, Fringe school because of its proximity to two large suburban centers. However, REA did not fit the typical profile of a Rural, Fringe school. Instead, REA resembled a Rural, Distant school. For in stance, REA had a student body of about 300 students in grades K 6, rather than the average of 583 K 5 students in Rural, Fringe schools. Also, as is more common for Rural, Distant schools, REA qualified for Title I services and had about 50% of students e ligible for the national lunch program. Demographics Demographically, REA had changed over time. In the mid 90s before the state implemented a policy of open enrollment for schools, the student body was 100% White. By 2017, the ethnic mix of the student b ody was 60% White and 35% Hispanic, with about 5% of students identified as two or more races ( greatschools.org ). Many schools experience a boost in enrollment when developers convert ranchland to high end hou sing, but REA lost students. Some developers petitioned for boundary changes so their residents could attend suburban schools. Also, families on the edges of the REA attendance 1 A pseudonym for the research center has been used to protect the identity of the community and research subjects. 2 Ibid

PAGE 196

183 area chose to optionally enroll their children in larger nearby schools. The st enrollment law coincided with the opening of an apartment complex designated affordable housing. The district redrew the REA attendance boundaries to annex the apartment complex, which had the immediate effect of increasing enrollment. Many families in the affordable Principal Lombard commented on the change: In 2010, we were predominantly a school made up of Caucasian kids. When the boundaries changed a lit tle bit, we were, to keep REA alive, we had to start pulling from Rural Junction had always been. And so there was division, there was division there, so the Hispanic famili had a really strong voice, so I did see some racial struggles there. What we tried to do is give the Hispanic community more of a voice. Giving a stronger voice to the Hispanic community i ncluded taking teachers, including one fluent in Spanish, to the apartment complex to conduct focus groups. The process took time and effort but REA began seeing results, as Principal Lombard explained: After about two years, you started seeing families m ore and more coming to school, coming to events, coming to PTO meetings, so we brought that voice in. And it was hard community a voice. Some families who had been at REA for generations resisted the change, and Principal Lombard intervened on an individual basis. Intervention was not always successful. When parents would have issues or say things that I considered unkind or had a racial dance area covered more than 150 square miles, which was larger than at least 20 school districts in the state (2002, State Department of Education 3 3 A pseudonym has been used to anonymize the state where the research was conducted for the protection of

PAGE 197

184 boundaries included a variety of housing units: large successful ranches, close knit community clus ters, spacious horse properties tucked into foothills, primitive cabins along forestland edges with no electricity or running water affordable housing apartments, and working farms owned for generations by one family. Because housing clusters were often m ore than 20 miles apart, students did not necessarily cross neighborhood boundaries outside of school. Students in 4 H socialized with other farm kids. Children who lived in middle class hamlets or high end developments talked about events at their communi ty centers. Those who lived in the affordable housing apartment complex could mingle in the common areas, such as the park and clubhouse. The families on the edges of the forest dealt with tourists and spo rts enthusiasts Some families with deep roots in t he region regularly gathered generations of relatives for activities. Star Ewing, a pseudonym for the focus teacher in whose classroom I researched, had always worked in rural areas. She spoke about the range of households represented among the student bo dy and appreciated the ways students interacted with one another: There are the kids who are very, very wealthy and then you have the kids who are in a two bedroom apartment with five people in the family and someone is sleeping on the couch. I think the c ool thing is you can't really tell who those kids are. And everybody is so welcomed and even found his niche of friends, which in other places you won't find that. I th ink that's a cool thing. No matter what your life there's somebody there and even if they're not exactly like you, you'll be accepted. Less judgmental, pretty accepting. Most students were bused to REA; only four students lived close enough to walk to sch ool. Buses were timed to arrive just minutes before the school bell, so students did not play on the playground prior to the start of the day. REA had a breakfast program that provided portable breakfast foods, and students took their breakfasts to their h omerooms. Students did not linger after school because the buses were lined up by dismissal time. Recess times were the only opportunities students had to mingle as grade levels.

PAGE 198

185 One strategy Principal Lombard instituted to build community among students was Connection Time, almost an hour at the start of each day when students were encouraged to interact and play with peers assigned to their homerooms. This was also intended as ti me for teachers to check in with students and build relationships. Physical Organization 1900s: a one story, flat roofed structure with brick and concrete walls, corridors stretc hing like fingers, tall windows on outer walls, and exterior doors from individual classrooms directly outdoors (L. Baker, 2012) The school sat on one end of a larg e lot, with extensive raised gardens and a playground area filling the other end. From the playground students had an unobstructed view to mountain ranges miles away (Figure 1 6 ) Figure 1 6 The view from the soccer field to the mountains was unobstructed. Two yellow buildings i n the distance on the right edge of the picture are the chicken coops built by students. In the interior of the school, tan tiled, softly lit hallways were lined with coat hooks and

PAGE 199

186 between classrooms were bulletin boards, which displayed student work from the nearest classrooms. The hallways and classrooms used natural lighting p rovided by solar canisters (Figure 1 7 ) rather than electric lighting. Solar canisters are tubes that go from the ceiling to the more diffused than the fluores cent lighting that was still available in the rooms. Surprisingly to me, the softer lighting did not trigger sleepiness Figure 1 7 Solar canisters provided almost all lighting in the school, even on cloudy days. The canisters could be closed with a swit ch to dim the room for video. The use of solar lighting is only one of many initiatives at the school for promoting environmental sustainability. Students attended a weekly sustainability class taught by local residents, and many ideas started as a resul t of conversations and research during class. For instance, students instigated planting low water gardens for fruit, vegetables, and flowers. A student led garden team planned and supervised building raised beds, planting, and harvesting (Figure 1 8 ). The space not commonly used for playing.

PAGE 200

187 Figure 1 8 Raised beds for vegetables were tucked into unused areas next to the building. This small bed, beside the entrance to the socc er field, had plant markers for beans and tomatoes. On the other side of the fence was a set of larger planting beds where the fifth graders planted radishes and lettuce during the third observation period. Recycling was also a major thrust for students. from landfills by composting food waste (Figure 1 9 ) recycling plastics and paper, and finding creative uses for hard to recycle items like batteries and markers. Figure 1 9 This composting bin sat along the front of the school. The white sign on the right reads Incoming Compostable Items

PAGE 201

188 Not many elementary schools have farm animals, but students proposed an animal husbandry project. Principal Lombard explained: I had a g but we have a lot of students who do. So then it became this big research project about what coop. So the sixth grade math group who built that first chicken coop, here you go, here are the supplies. They built the chicken coop with a lot of successes and a lot of failures in between. Then we talked about energy. have power out there. So what if we went to solar? So I went to Harbor Freight, purchased a solar kit Figure 20 Two chicken coops built by students. On this day, only one coop was in use. Students not only built the coops and solar panels to provide power, but also cared for the chickens daily. Students with 4 H backgrounds taught their classmates how to care for the chickens, including providing the birds with food scraps and rainwater, collecting eggs, and shov eling droppings for composting (Figure 20) Individual students provided leadership to implement other ideas for improving the school. One student initiated a health and wellness program to motivate students to be active outdoors and promote good nutriti onal choices. Another student headed a team to build a large

PAGE 202

189 school mascot from non recyclable soft plastics. These and other projects engaged students in real life learning situations. As is common in rural schools, REA used multi age classes to accommo date fluctuating enrollments and flexible staffing (Ritland & Eighmy, 2012) While kindergarten classes were all day self contained groups, the other classes covered two grade bands (Grades 1/2, 3/4, and 5/6). For the dissertation study, I conducted my observations in one of four Grade 5/6 classrooms. The 5/6 Campus Four teachers, one female and three males, collaborated to teach about 100 fifth and sixth graders at REA. Students from both grade levels w ere distributed across all four classrooms. For reading and math instruction, students were grouped by ability and kept together for the whole year. Two teachers covered reading, and the other two teachers handled math. For writing, science, and social st udies, teachers platooned. Each teacher taught a single unit of study, usually for a week, to each of the four homeroom groups. Units of study were selected from both fifth and sixth grade standards. For instance, in November, Star Ewing taught short const ructed responses in writing and kinetic versus potential energy in science. Later in the year, Star taught science units on plant and human systems and social studies units on citizenship and the structure of US government. These units were each taught fou participation in the sustainability class during specials addressed renewable and nonrenewable resources and weather (science standards) and measurement (math standard). The 5/6 campus teacher team worked well together. Daily t hey met during their lunch and planning times to organize instructional units, adjust schedules, enter and analyze data, brainstorm about students, and coordinate activities. Principal Lombard had praised the team for their planning process and encouraged them to continue to plan together daily. Star said:

PAGE 203

190 This made us feel good because we enjoy that stuff. I mean, really, we said at the our team every single person br ought something different but it was needed. And we came to appreciate that about each other. [At the end of the year] we did like a peer evaluation, and so, all we did was if they were talking about me, I had to be quiet and I was taking notes on what the y said. And they said what are the things Star does really well or we really appreciate about her and then what are things that are growth areas or showed] the respect and l ove we had for each other. Because of district IRB restrictions, I was not present for grade level planning sessions, but during recess and in the hallways I observed the teachers making on the fly adjustments to schedules or activities. The conversations were always collaborative, supportive, and jovial. REA Teacher: Star Ewing Star Ewing grew up in a small farming town in a rural region of a neighboring state, four hours from the nearest city. While she was a K 12 student, an influx of Southeast Asian and Hispanic immigrants who arrived to work in local, low paying industry changed the demographics of her hometown to become one of the most ethnically and racially diverse communities in the state. By the time Star graduated from high school, the student body was predominantly Hispanic in ethnicity After college, Star taught for eight years in her hometown and one year in another rural town before relocating to her current home. Star lived in a suburb e time of the research study, Star was in her fourth year as a 5/6 teacher at REA. Her educator husband and middle schooler son were both at large suburban schools in the same district as REA. Their school experiences differed she tried to clarify: I know [my husband and son] being in [the suburbs], they deal with a lot of entitlement, and a lot of parents not wanting to have difficult conversations with their kids. They keep them more sheltered. I think our kids, maybe it's th e opposite. I think, like our kids, home life is sooo risqu [sic] almost sometimes, that schools are safe places. They love being emailing all the time with what are you doin g or it's horrible.

PAGE 204

191 she was prepared for the racial, ethnic, and socio economic mix of REA. She advocated for her students with the middle school, which seemed obliv ious to the challenges families faced. For instance, Star said: For most of [the families] it's not the family computer anymore, it's hey have to do [middle school] enrollment all online and that's really hard for our families. I've tried to tell the middle school because they want them to print thing And they haven't been doing stuff in Spanish. They gave us all the materials in English. I English and a Spanish [version] We've been asking you to do this for years and you just Star was the second most experienced teacher on the 5/6 campus team and had the longest tenure in the 5/6 combination classes. Two men had fewer than five years of teaching experience, both with alternative licenses, and the final team member was preparing to retire. Star taught two sections of reading and platooned with her teammates for instruction in science, writing, and social st udies. cycle, instruction was fairly consistent, but each set of observations had its own rhythm. Consequently, the three three week observational cycles will be described separa tely.

PAGE 205

192 Figure 21 The daily schedule poster was displayed at the front of the room all year. Despite significant daily changes to the schedule, t he only change on the chart from day to day was the icon for specials since the location and type of special rotated. The icon on this Tuesday was music. Students also attended art, physical education, and sustainability specials. First observation period (end of November and early December). I started the first observations immediately after Thanksgiving and ended immediately before the winter break. The schedule for the first observation period adhered to the schedule posted on the wall all year (Figure 21 ). At the end of each day, a student would flip the schedule to the next day. HOMEROOM/CONNECTION TIME: students were permitted in the classroom. Students entered the room quietly and went to the table along the far wall where Chromebooks were plugged in for overnight charging (Figure 2 2 ). Students who forgot to plug in their computers at the end of the school day had to hope the charge would last the second day or had to go without a computer. They each had a Chromebook assigned to them and were expected to carry the Chromebooks with them all day. Students also

PAGE 206

193 c for four lunch choices (A, B, C, and D). Figure 2 2 and a basket for headphones. As part of the sustainability program, teachers chose whether to ged overnight. Students participating in the free breakfast program straggled into homeroom carrying their breakfast choices. Some days, when the breakfast choices were particularly popular and/or took longer to prepare, students did not come into the cl assroom until 9:15 or even later. The room was arranged with six tables in three rows. The tables were angled so the seats along the middle aisle were closer to the whiteboard with the attached projector. Each table could hold six students comfortably al though rarely were more than three or four students assigned to a table. Students sat facing one another along the long edges of the tables. Once students settled at their assigned seats, they opened their Chromebooks and wrote individual responses to a w riting prompt. Usually the teaching team came up with topics for the prompts during their planning times, but when they had not had time, one male teacher wrote the

PAGE 207

194 e loaded into Google Classroom and scheduled for each day. Students were expected to write a minimum of a five sentence constructed response, a writing skill that had been covered at the beginning of the year. When students posted their ideas, they could responses in 15 20 minutes although two students often took 30 minutes or more. The room was almost completely silent while students were writing. laminated envelope to confirm the lunch count and attendance. The monitor named each lunch choice (hot lunch A, ho t lunch B, salad C, or lunch from home D) in succession, and all students who had chosen that option raised their hands. The monitor checked the list against the raised hands. For the home ponse. responses against the names on the envelope that had no lunch choices marked. Then the monitor listed absentees for the teacher, who entered attendance data on her c omputer, including late Between 9:15 and 9:30, a ding on the public address system signaled announcements. All students were expected to sit quietly, computers parti [degree angle] announcements were finished. Sometimes the announcements were hard to hear and, halfway sound. Two fifth or sixth gr ade students typically led the announcements. They started with the pledge. Students in the classroom stood and faced the flag to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The

PAGE 208

195 pledge was often recited out of sync. The announcers sped up and slowed down inconsistent ly, and students in the class were not able to develop a common rhythm. After the pledge, students sat and the announcements continued with a reminder of the behavior goal of the week. The remaining announcements focused on school activities. After studen ts completed their online responses to the writing prompt, they had until 10:00 to engage with others. In this classroom students played card games or board games, read together, or chatted. They were not permitted to use computers because the teacher had found when students were on computers, even if they were sitting together, they focused on the screens and not on connecting with their friends. During C onnection T posts and either responded to them online or talked to them about what they had written. Sometimes students were required to rewrite their posts, especially if they had not answered the prompt. Early in each week, the teacher commonly asked students individually about their weekends or checked with them to see how they were progressing on class assignments. The teacher also used this time to set up schedules for new students, make copies, talk to colleagues, Sometimes students used C onnecti on T im e for club meetings, helping teachers in other classrooms or the library, checking in with the Special Education team, or completing classwork The school followe d a no homework policy so if students fell behind academically or had been absent, they used Connection Time to catch up. During Connection Time it was not unusual to see three groups of students on the floor, two groups at the side table, one or two stude nts at the kidney shaped table with the teacher, and

PAGE 209

196 one or two students grouped at their regular seats. Students often played in mixed ethnic and gender groups. The favored card game was Speed, which one student had taught the class. Popular board games were Connect Four, Candyland (often played in creative ways), and a small pattern game I did not recognize. Rarely did students just sit and talk, although that was acceptable. BLOCK 1 (10:00 11:15) AND BLOCK 2 (11:15 12:30) READING: In the fall, Star tau ght two blocks of reading. In my experience, both Block 1 and Block 2 classes were taught the same lessons with little, if any, variations. I have created a composite of reading instruction for the first observation span because sometimes I was out of the classroom for one of the blocks. On those occasions, I saw a lesson in only one block and its follow up in the other block the next day. When my notes on the two blocks differed significantly, I have mentioned which block I was describing. Students entered the room at a signal from Star and sat in the group gathering space near faced a large whiteboard while the teacher sat on a wheeled chair to the right of the board. Star used the kidney table as a desk and for small group instruction. Star kept her MacBook laptop on the kidney table and connected it to the mounted projector. Many days, students had their Chromebooks on their laps or on the f loor beside them. Against the back wall behind the kidney table was a credenza, which had a document camera and personal items like family photos. I never saw Star use the document camera although she said she had used it occasionally at the beginning of t he year. The whiteboard had a mounted device that turned it into an interactive surface, but Star never turned the interactivity on. Star typically used a microphone for whole

PAGE 210

197 group instruction throughout the day. Two students in her homeroom and reading c lasses wore hearing aids Generally, Star gave students five to ten minutes to chat with one another before she started instruction. S tudents typically did not open their Chromebooks while waiting, although one student in Block 1 habitually had a computer open and on. This student hid under the credenza keyhole and often lost his computer privileges because he accessed inappropriate websites or refused to close his computer. When t he student exhibited unacceptable behavior the special education teacher ca me to the classroom and took the student out of the room. whiteboard from her computer. Students often accessed the same website or Google Classroom document the teacher was projecting while they were sitting in the whole group area. For Star, it was a way to be sure they were in the right place before she released them to work independently. The whole group portion of the lesson generally lasted 20 30 minutes. Af ter the whole group lesson, students completed the assigned work. Students worked alone or with partners and sat at the tables or on the floor. Every student was responsible for submitting the assignment in Classroom, whether or not the work had been done with a partner. Occasionally, a specialist provided small group support for English Language Learners in Block 1, although this was uncommon in the November December timeframe. If time remained after finishing the assigned work, students could read self s elected books. Students had multiple sources for reading material. Those with IEPs for print disabilities could choose from one of the 80,000 audio books with voice print match on Learning Ally.org ( learningall y.org/ ). Print disabilities are physical limitations that make holding traditional books

PAGE 211

198 offered several hundred volumes, ranging from picture books to high school classics, organized by grade levels. Some students found .pdf files of books online, checked play away audio books out of a library, or chose nonfiction and news articles in Newsela ( newsela.com/ ). The Learning A lly and Newsela subscriptions were district provided. The 5/6 campus teachers had agreed to focus on poetry on Mondays. Of the five Mondays I spent in the classroom, I saw only two poetry lessons, one of which was in late November. Star said she and the o ther language arts teacher usually found the poetry lessons online and planned the lessons to last only one day. On the poetry day I observed in November, the lesson started with whole group instruction at the front of the room. Star projected a series of slides taken from the internet to guide the discussion. First, students looked at pictures of masks. Star had them talk in pairs and small groups about when people wear physical masks like those in the pictures. She then had several students share their id eas with the whole group. Most people wear masks. As You Like It stage, And all the men and 1037 38 ; Originally from Open Source Shakespeare, opensourceshakespeare.org ) Star asked students to discuss with shoulder partners what they thought the quote meant. After a couple of minutes, Star asked students to share their did not think of the quote as referring to the theater because they were thinking stage was a period of deve lopment and players meant sports team members. Star offered no prompts or assists.

PAGE 212

199 The third screen was the illustrated (2011) from the website ( commo nlit.org/ ) a repository of high quality and free instructional materials from which Star took the lesson plan Star read the poem aloud twice and asked students to discuss its meaning Most students stayed silent. At the end of the discussion, Star divide d students into two groups. She instructed one group to download a document from Google Classroom which had a prompt asking students to write about a connection they had to the pictures, quote, or poem from the whole group lesson. Students were directed to type a short constructed response and submit back into Classroom. The second group was told to gather at the kidney table. They were creating representational images with Lego Express kits. Star had told me Principal Lombard would be observing and evalua ting her during the block. According to Star, because the school had spent a lot of money to buy Lego Express kits and provide extensive teacher training with the kits, Principal Lombard had set an expectation that teachers use the kits when he conducted p rofessional evaluations. Principal Lombard came into the room just as Star was distributing Lego Express kits to nine students in the first group. Star gave students two minutes to create what she called a build of a connection or idea they had from readi ng the poem. After two minutes, which she timed on her cell phone, Star asked each student to quickly explain the connection or idea to the other students in the group. Star had created her own build while students worked. She told students their second b uilds would be about a time when you put on a mask. She modeled with her own build to describe how when she was in college and phoned home weekly, she put on a mask that she was having a great time, although she was lonely and homesick.

PAGE 213

200 Students then ha d four minutes to create a second build. While students worked, Star checked on the students working independently. Those who had submitted their written responses in Google Classroom were reading for pleasure. When the four minutes were up, Star asked st udents to share their builds with the group. Students talked about emotionally difficult topics such as divorce, bullying, deaths, failure, and loneliness, although some students kept their topics light. After the sharing, Star had the two groups switch. P rincipal Lombard left the room. Star repeated the activities with the second group of nine students at the kidney table. Because the first group had taken longer than planned, the second group of students had less time for their builds and their explanatio ns than the previous group. I n Block 1 while students were building Star received a personal phone call on her cell phone and stepped into the hall to talk. This also shortened the time students had for explanations On Tuesdays through Thursdays, students worked with fiction or nonfiction reading passages. According to Star, she had assigned personal experiences and fiction early in the year. By the time I began observations in late November, Star had switched to non fiction texts. She said her nonfiction readings were usually taken from Newsela ( newsela.com/ ). Newsela was an online subscription based site for high interest nonfiction and news articles at five Lexile levels for grad es 2 12. Users could annotate the articles, take quizzes on content and vocabulary, and respond to writing prompts. The site could be integrated with Google Classroom, which was how Star used it. Star used Newsela with both reading and writing classes. In the three week span of the first observation period, Star introduced a new nonfiction reading passage only once and that was during the last week of November. I observed the lesson

PAGE 214

201 described here in Block 2 because I was absent in Block 1 that day, but St ar had conducted the same lesson in Block 1 that day. Star started by asking students to identify the four roles in reciprocal teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1984) and how each role was executed. Student s talked in pairs before Star engaged versus fiction. The reciprocal teaching roles were Predictor, who predicted what the next section of text would cover; Questioner, who asked questions triggered by the information in the text; Summarizer, who read aloud a section of the text, set a timer for two minutes of think time, and summarized the text aloud; and Clarifier, who identified vocabulary others might not know. Next, Star had the Block 2 class select a Newsela article to read. Students went to their table seats and had three minutes to look through the website for an Students nominated articles by calling out titles that interested them, which Star wrote on the whiteboard at the front of the room. When about fifteen articles had been nominated, students voted for one. The vote narrowed the list to three or four articles, which necessitated a second vote. Selection of the article took about twenty minutes. Once the article was chosen, Star access ed the teacher area, f ou nd the article, and assign ed the article to students. When she had assig ned the Newsela article, students were instructed to refresh their pages to get access to the assigned article. Not everyone knew how to

PAGE 215

202 center and open up Go ogle Classroom as well. Find Block 2 [in Google Classroom] and make a Star asked if any students had been absent the previous day. No one responded so she moved on. Then she became aware one student had been absent but had not spoken up. She stopped the class to demonstrate how she expected students to ask for help. Then she guided the student through the process of putting in the access code to Newsela. Another student indicated he could not find the article. Star pointed out he had not logged into the class account on Google Classroom and so did not yet have access to the d ocument. Some students did not seem to grasp the difference between entering an access code for Newsela group and logging into their Google accounts. When students had the graphic organizers open on their desktops, Star brought up the Newsela article on t he projector and instructed the students to type the article title and author in the appropriate spaces on the graphic organizer and to add their names to the document header. The graphic organizer had four separate areas where students were to record thei r contributions to the discussions on the four sections of the Newsela article. Star read aloud the introduction to the article and demonstrated how a Summarizer would summarize the introduction. Student groups were to start with the body of the article an d not repeat the introduction. Star announced who would be in each group, and students spread out across the struggled to read the passages and to summarize what w as read. Students toggled between the article and the graphic organizer. Additionally, the Summarizer often brought up a timer for managing think time, and the Clarifier performed Google searches on the vocabulary words.

PAGE 216

203 Student groups had time for only t wo sections of the article before the Block ended. Students had time the following day to complete the reciprocal teaching on the same article. On the second day, all student groups finished before the block ended and submitted the graphic organizers in Cl assroom. A specialist came into Block 1 about halfway through the period and gathered the English Language Learners to check their work and to teach them about metaphor. During the same time, Star collected four students at the kidney table and taught them about metaphors. The teachers did not seem to connect the lesson about metaphors to any readings or assignments, although the information would have been appropriate for the poetry lesson two days earlier. However, in the poetry lesson, the word metaphor had not been mentioned. On Wednesday, students in Block 2, but not Block 1, were instructed to post an exit ticket about the poem from the Monday lesson on a Plexiglas board attached to the side wall. When students had submitted their graphic organizers an d posted their exit tickets, they could read independently. In Block 2 for the last 15 minutes, Star also gave permission for students to used online Legos, seve n students used the physical Lego kits, and eight students continued with independent reading. For the remaining two weeks of the observation, during reading blocks, Star administered DRA tests for all students. She typically had a list of tasks written on the whiteboard at the back of the room. On two days, the list was DRA Independent read for 30 45 minutes Lego build on what was read

PAGE 217

204 Take a picture, insert into a document and write about the build Turn the document in on Classroom Other tasks Star had s tudents complete were to read the questions students had posted on the Plexiglas wall, written after reading a Newsela article, research the answer, and post the answer beside the question. Twice students were instructed to complete a poetry assessment or assignments for other classes. The DRA reading assessment was administered individually and had several components. For part of the test, students read aloud to Star and answered questions about what they had read. For another portion of the test, studen ts read a passage silently at their tables and completed a worksheet summarizing what they had read. Students also responded in writing to a reading interest inventory. Administering the DRA assessments took significant time. Star asked me to work with s pecific students. For some students, I scribed answers on the worksheet and interest inventory. For other students, I listened to them read the passages aloud and then scribed their summaries. The work I did with individual students built relationships tha t caused them to return to sit near me during independent reading and to solicit my help with additional reading tasks whenever I was in the classroom. WRITING BLOCK (12:30 1:15): All the 5/6 campus teachers platooned to teach writing units. The homeroom c lasses rotated among teachers so the teachers could repeat the same writing unit four times, once for the each homeroom group. Star said she had taught constructed response as her writing unit. During my observations, I never saw Star do instruction on how to write, so the team may have finished with writing units. What I seemed to observe were three weeks of lessons on reading nonfiction.

PAGE 218

205 Because of the make up of the writing class, Star had two or three specialists who came into the class to work with sm all groups. One specialist worked with English Language Learners and one worked with students who had IEPs. The third person came to class occasionally and did not have a regular group of students. She worked with the students Star identified for her. On the first day, Star had students gather in the front of the room in the whole group area. She identified which students were already experienced with using Newsela. As she talked with students, she created a class folder in Classroom for the specific group of students. She then showed them how to create an account in Google, how to sign in, and how to use a code to join the Newsela group. It took three adults to get all the students logged in to both Classroom and Newsela. Star then demonstrated the Newsel a site for students. She showed them how and where to write a constructed response, take a quiz, and search for articles. By the time the whole group introduction had ended, students had 15 minutes to explore the site. Star informed them they would be usin g the site the following day. Over the next few days, students read two articles in Newsela. One article they chose through a vote similar to the way the Reading Blocks chose one. The other article was chosen by Star. Each article took two or three days to complete. On different days, Star demonstrated and then had students try: How to read an article, including stopping to check for understanding; How to highlight and annotate an article using Newsela tools; How to identify the main idea and express it in one sentence; and How to refer to the text when taking a quiz.

PAGE 219

206 On the final two days, students took a post test on the unit. They were given a print out of an article and asked how the main character was a l eader. Students were required to highlight and annotate the article, make a plan for a constructed response, and write a paragraph. Students who worked in small groups with specialists were expected to cite one piece of evidence from the text to support th eir answer. Students who worked independently were required to cite two or three examples from the text to support their answers. On the first day of the post test, none of the specialists came to the classroom, and Star stated she felt overwhelmed by stud LUNCH (1:15 2:00) AND SPECIALS (2:00 2:50): The 5/6 campus teaching team had a commitment to plan together every day over their lunch and planning times. Because of district restrictions, I was not permitted to join the planning sessions. M ost days the team was joined by one or more specialists and/or the administrative team for a portion of the planning time to address student behavior issues. Mostly, though, the team used this time to adjust schedules, determine next steps in instruction, and problem solve issues that arose. In late November, the in the ir classrooms. One teacher managed the mouse and entered the agreed on grades. INVESTIGATIONS BLOCK (2:50 3:50): Investigations was listed on the wall schedule as 2:50 3:50, but at some point before I started observing, the 5/6 teaching team had decided to read books aloud after specials, so Investigations did not actually begin until 3:10. In November and December, Star read a novel Maniac Magee (Spinelli, 1990) aloud. She used the microphone each day while she read. At 3:10, she dismissed students to go to Science. show what they remembered about the three states of matter in a physical demonstration. Star

PAGE 220

207 then showed students how to use stick ies to mark important information in texts. She called this coding the text. Students were given textbooks and were asked to read several pages about kinetic and potential energy. They were told to mark important information with stickies. On day four, students had their computers in the whole group area. Star said they would be watching a video by Bill Nye on atoms and molecules. She had created an anticipation guide as a Google document. Some students had not yet joined the class account, so she gave t hem the class code for Google Classroom. While students were copying and opening the anticipation guide, one student clicked on the link to the video they were to watch. The video began to play, and he quickly clicked out of the video. The teacher remi nded students the anticipation guide would be used to take notes on the video. When she clicked the link for the video, she received an error message indicating the video was not available. She spent seven minutes trying to find the right video. She could not remember the title and opened at least three videos before she found the one she wanted. When she finally identified the right video, she asked a student to close the solar tubes to dim the room. Star occasionally paused the video to remind students to fill out their anticipation guides. Students typed slowly so this process of taking notes was lengthy. The class period ended at about minute 16 of the video. On day five of the unit, Star first started the video where they had left off the previous day After the video finished and students had filled out their anticipation guides, Star had them save their documents and she introduced a jigsaw reading activity (Aronson, 2002) Students had paper copies of a reading from the online resource Science A Z ( sciencea z.com/ ). Star divided them into teams of four students. They counted off in their teams so each student knew which page(s) to read in the expert groups. Then students convened in expert groups to read the

PAGE 221

208 assigned page(s) and develop one sentence summaries of the passages. They returned to their teams and read their sentences to the team. Star gather ed the students in the whole group area and asked for definitions of potential and kinetic energy. Students from expert teams read their sentences aloud. Star explained they would need to know the difference between potential and kinetic energy for an experiment later in the week. On day six of the unit, Star showed students a Google document of a data sheet s he had provided for their experiment. She sent a student to the printer to collect the paper sheets she had just printed for the class. Then she showed students the online version of the book they had read on day five. The pages she showed, though, were in structions for the rubber band experiment they were going to do. She explained the experiment thoroughly and demonstrated what they would do. The students and Star and I went out to the hallway to conduct the rubber band experiment. Students worked in te ams of two and were efficient in their data collection. This was in contrast to an earlier class in November that had shown little understanding of what they were doing and did not use consistent procedures to measure the rubber band distances. The class p eriod ended before students finished collecting the data. On day seven of the unit, students completed the experiment and calculated averages for the data. Day eight was the final day of the unit. Star showed students the Google document with a prompt for their summative assessment for the unit. Students were expected to work with their experiment partners to answer the prompt, although each student had to submit his own short constructed response of five sentences or more. The class did not discuss as a w hole what their

PAGE 222

2 09 would be expected to use Connection Time to finish. HOMEROOM AND DISMISSAL (3:50 4:00): Students collected their belongings and completed any en d of day tasks, such as picking up trash from the floor, sharpening pencils, checking the Chromebooks for overnight charging, and distributing any flyers. If students finished and were seated quietly at their desks before 4:00, they either went outside for recess or, in cold weather, played an indoor game. I returned to REA for the last two days of January and the first half of February. During the second observation period, the schedule was more flexible than i t had been in the fall semester. Star commented about the changes in the daily schedule: Schedule is always going to be in flux. You probably noticed it was way more solid at the beginning, more consistent. And then you'll hit that part of the year where everything is constantly changing so we tried to find a schedule where we could adjust it and have it be, even though it was a different schedule, that was the new normal schedule. It didn't. It worked for a while and then we changed it again. For clarit y, I laid out the daily schedule for the second observation period in Table 7. Second observation period (end of January and early February). I resumed list of acti vities to do during the week, including showing a short video during Connection Time on Monday. The teachers had also created kindness posters for display. At 9:00 the 5/6 campus et the students with poster waving and cheering.

PAGE 223

210 Table 7 Daily Schedule during Second Observation HOMEROOM AND CONNECTION TIME (9:05 10:00): The 5/6 campus teachers had

PAGE 224

211 homeroom students during Connection Time to prepare students for the state assessment. One teach er demonstrated meditation techniques; one teacher re taught writing short constructed responses; Star focused on typing; and the fourth teacher acted as a Connection Time. ged their Chromebooks, one and took their seats with their computers. here you add your apps T yping C in. Log in, obviously with Google. Click Allo She then explained they would be practicing typing during Connection Time. The program would start with typing basics: posture and home row. Students would progress through learning the location of keys and practicing proper fingering. Star said ng is on the [state] assessment. You will practice for 15 20 minutes every morning before you start Connection reminded students to start typing practice each day she never told them when to stop S tudents generally typed for the firs t 30 minutes of Connection Time before one student would decide to stop. One student stopping trigger ed the rest of the students to stop. On the first day, when students stopped typing practice, Star reminded them anyone who still needed to finish a scie nce unit assessment must work on that. All other students were permitted to play games or talk. Five minutes before the end of Connection Time, Star stopped

PAGE 225

212 ( youtube.com/watch?v=rwelE8yyY0U ). Typing practice continued through all three observation weeks. However, students had Connection Time only three of the nine days I observed. On three days, students wer e stopped at 9:30 to begin MAP testing, which lasted until 11:30. On three days, students worked in groups on their culminating projects for science, which will be explained in a later section. SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING CLASS TIME: On the first and last obse rvation days, students followed the fall blocks, although the timing was not always the same. On the first observation day, Star taught a poetry lesson in both reading blocks, had students working on vocabulary posters in writing block, and designated the science block as a catch up day. On the final observation day, Star taught both reading and writing classes using Newsela articles. Except for one additional Block 1 reading class on the second observation day, students worked on only science content for t he remaining days. By the end of January, students had completed four science units, each seven days long. The science units had been forces and motion, atoms and molecules, constructive and destructive forces, and climate. Teachers assessed students at t he end of each unit. Assessments included a constructed response (Star), a webquest, a Lego Express build of an atom, and a worksheet. During any free time, students were reminded they could not start the science summative assessment projects until they ha d completed all the unit assessments. Summative science assessment As a science summative assessment, the 5/6 campus teachers asked students to design group projects requiring research about topics from the science units. Students worked in self selected groups to design, plan, research, and implement a science

PAGE 226

213 project illustrating or teaching an aspect or concept from the science units. At a later date, students presented their projects to t On four observation days, students took MAP tests between 9:30 and 11:30, had half an hour recess, and then worked on their science projects for the rest of the day. On three additional obser vation days, students worked on their science projects from 9:30 until the end of the school day. Students were spread across the four classrooms according to how far they had progressed in the project process and the types of projects they had designed. O n the first days, while students were selecting groups, deciding on topics, and developing plans they could submit for classroom where she and I worked with them. Star either walked from student to student to check their progress or pulled two or three students to the kidney table to work with her. I generally sat at the side table for six and had two or three students with me. Since they each were working on different assessments, I alternated my attention among them to prompt them when they got distracted or assist when they got stuck. Sometimes that included scribing for students or reading passages aloud to them. When I scribed, students dictated while I ty ped on their Chromebooks, pausing periodically to read back to them what had been written so far. Sometimes students researched information on their Chromebooks to help them understand the science concepts they had not grasped in class. Because of my pers onal belief students should control their own computers, unless they asked me to take control, my role was more of a coach. When students were researching, I noticed how few strategies students used to conduct online research. The most common practice was to bring up a Google search engine for images and give a voice command. They would then scan the pictures and make inferences from

PAGE 227

214 what they saw. Although I offered coaching suggestions for improving their research strategies, students did not follow my su ggestions. After a week of work sessions, the teachers gathered all s tudents into one classroom for a class meeting where two high performing and fast working groups presented preliminary projects. One group had created a slide show. The other group had designed a physical demonstration. The teaching team gave students feed back, much of which had to do with was to demonstrate what was possible and to show the high expectations teachers held for presenting scientifically accurate information. All groups were expected to present their ideas and preliminary designs to a panel of teachers for evaluation and approval. The class meeting reinforced the process. When all students were finally caught up on science assignments and working on science developing poster presentations. The number of groups did not remain consistent since student groups had to get approval on their science project topics before they started their projects. At any time, Star had six to eight groups of three or four students working on posters in her room. Students with technology based projects were in another classroom, and students working on physical demonstrations were in a th ird classroom. The fourth teacher served as a consultant for science content and an evaluator of plans and designs. and white photographs taken from the internet. Generally students began their research with image searches in Google.

PAGE 228

215 Most often students triggered the searches with voice commands on their research topic, such as earthquake or tsunami Voice commands were easier than typing the correct spelling. The students scanned the imag es to find cool pictures and rarely followed the links to visit the source or read about the pictures. Instead, they copied and pasted the pictures into a Google document and continued to collect photos. For example, a group of students working on earthqu ake destruction wanted to show the damage caused by earthquakes of differing strengths. They used voice commands for what they considered narrowed topics. For instance, they requested category one earthquake damage and category five earthquake damage They assumed the images would conform to the search terms and did not read about the pictures or the earthquakes that caused the damage. They ended up with many category four and five earthquake photos, which they (mis)labeled as damage caused by category one, two, and three earthquakes. When groups had enough pictures, a member opened another Google document and typed what the group dictated as facts about the topic. The facts might have been gleaned from books, websites, or personal knowledge. Sometimes one group member dictated text from a website verbatim, and the typist tried to reproduce it. Students also dictated photo captions and titles. Students did not document where they gathered the information or cite any sources. When most information had been r eproduced i n Google documents on the Chromebooks, groups moved to the single iMac computer at the front of the room, logged into Google documents, and printed. During science projects, students seemed to have autonomy over printing, although in other situa tions, they asked for permission. The printer, located in the hall

PAGE 229

216 Once the text and pictures were printed, students laid them out on their poster board. Often students did not trim margins, draw guide lines for placing the pictures or text, or even plan what items would go where on the poster. Star expressed surprise on how difficult student groups found poster creation. She remembered as a student, she had had plenty of practice designing posters: Back then a lot was presenting on boards and construction paper and you might not have had the scrapbooking scissors but you tried to do cool borders and make your papers neat background and you have some say on where things go and sure, you can try some things and get creative but it definitely is mu ch easier. The students did not seem to think about colors, font sizes and styles, alignment of text and pictures, or balance and symmetry. Nor did they seem to have any guidance for planning posters. Star commented: [For] the science projects when they w ere doing boards and that's really the first time that they've thought about presentation where it's not a slideshow where you can easily drag and drop and it centers for you and oh, the lines are already straight and font is great. Learning for them to do that on their own was challenging for sure. I now see why we were like hey [Star] maybe you can help them with presentation. It was needed, more than I realized I guess. Because for me that stuff is so intrinsic because it's me, that's how I'm made. Organ ized and structured. I like that. Having kids who didn't know that piece was interesting. Students were not permitted to mount anything permanently on their posters until they had teacher approval. Perhaps because she thought students would know whether t heir work was pleasing or not, at first Star commented primarily on crooked layouts. I, on the other hand, as a former English teacher, started with proofreading for content and mechanics. I required students to read their text aloud, which helped them cat ch incomplete sentences and confusing syntax. I coached them on mechanical errors as well. Then I asked how their facts and pictures aligned with their proposed topics. When they had reviewed, reworked, and revised their text and pictures, they were ready for information about design, layout, and color. Over time I noted Star

PAGE 230

217 began to critiqu e all aspects of the posters. Students were still working on science projects when my observations ended in February. Table 8 Daily Schedule for Third Observation Students took state tests the first two weeks of April. I was not permitted in the school or classroom during testing, so I could not begin observations until the third week. Because the uired me to be out of the school by May 1, I had only two weeks for

PAGE 231

218 observations. Also, in that two weeks, there was no school on a Friday, and Star extended the weekend by taking a personal day on Monday. I observed seven days in the two weeks. Third obs ervation period (April) The most notable feature of the two weeks was the lack of consistency in the daily schedule. Days seemed to be a mix of fun activities and pressure to complete content area work. When students had content instruction, they were lea rning about life science and American history and geography. For clarity in understanding the flexibility of the daily schedule during the observation period, see Table 8. CONNECTION TIME (9:10 10:00): Although the original intent of Connection Time was to help students build relationships with their peers and homeroom teacher, by April, few students had free time to socialize. The 5/6 campus teachers had created a spreadsheet in Google Classroom for tracking whether students had completed assignments in sc ience and social studies. Missing assignments were color coded red on the spreadsheet, which was visible to all students in the 5/6 campus and the specialists who assisted with 5/6 students. When assignments were submitted and graded, teachers color coded the spreadsheet cells green. During Connection Time, students were required to work on completing the missing assignments. I entered the final two weeks knowing I had collected only one student interview. Because all students rode buses, before and afte r school interviews were nearly impossible to arrange. The best interview opportunities would be during Connection Time when students had the freedom to socialize. But, because many students had missing assignments, my student selection was limited to thos e who had completed their assignments and were free during Connection Time. This skewed my interviews to students who had the skills, attention spans, and motivation to do the science and social studies work quickly. I interviewed students instead of observing the study halls and Connection Times.

PAGE 232

219 On two days, Connection Time ended at 9:30 for activities lasting until 11:00. On one of the days, sixth grade students went to have their pictures taken and fifth grade students planted seeds in the sch ool garden. On the other day, all students made bird feeders in the cafeteria. Although Connection Time was often abbreviated, the 5/6 teachers scheduled morning recess, a practice not in evidence during the previous observation periods. Recess seemed to have replaced the 30 minute block the teachers had previously used for teaching writing, although it was not always limited to 30 minutes. Students had at least four hours of morning recess over the seven days I observed. Students also had almost three ho urs of study hall in addition to the Connection Time study halls. BLOCKS 1 AND 2: Blocks 1 and 2 were when Star and a teammate usually taught reading while the remaining two teammates taught math. However, in the third observation classes studied plant and human life cycles. The schedule varied significantly from day to day, so this section describes a composite of the unit. Block 1 had five and a half hours of science instruction, and Block 2 had five hours over the seven days I o bserved. I did not see instruction on two days in the second week because Star took a personal day on a Monday and I was not at the school for the instruction on Thursday of that week. On the first day of the unit, Star gathered students in the whole gro up area and projected a BrainPOP video about chlorophyll. Star placed a microphone next to her computer to make the video loud enough for students to hear. She showed students how to access the video and the quiz about the video on their Chromebooks. Stude nts were sent to their tables to re watch the video and take the quiz. When they scored 70% or better on the quiz, they could read their pleasure books.

PAGE 233

220 When students watched the video at their seats, a few students used class headphones, but most students just played the video quietly and leaned toward their computers to hear. Star did not require accountability on whether students actually scored 70% or better on the quiz before they started independent reading. In Block 1, I watched the video with a student who had reading difficulties and often chose to work with me. She stopped the video each time she felt confused and we discussed what the information meant. She opened the quiz in a second tab so I could read the quiz questions and four multiple choice answers aloud to her. Then she returned to the video window, manipulated the progress bar to the appropriate section of the video, and re listened to th e video clip until she was sure of the answer. The strategy she developed for the BrainPOP video on this day became her regular practice when she accessed videos for independent work. In Block 2, I had three boys with reading and attention difficulties w ho sat with me. The students did the work independently, and I read quiz questions aloud, re focused them on the the whole group area, as was customary for the class. Star showed them a Google document they could download where she had written the instructions for their work. They were to access the website Great Plant Escape ( extension.illinois.edu/gpe/index.cfm ) and complete three of the six sections on the website. Students were paired to work on the website. Then individually on white printer paper, students were required to draw a plant and label the pa rts. Star called a small group to the kidney table to work on their drawings. Two students who had missed the previous day sat near me and paired up to work on the Great Plant Escape website I checked in with them every few minutes to refocus them when th ey got distracted. Another student approached me to look at the

PAGE 234

221 website and do the activities with him. His low reading level made the text heavy website difficult to comprehend. We took turns reading the web pages aloud and discussing what we learned. Thi s was a common pattern in reading blocks. Sometimes Star sent students to me for scribing or reading texts aloud. Most of the time, though, five or six students chose to sit at the table where I was and ask for help when they got stuck. The next day, Star met with students in whole group and listed her expectations Students needed to finish their explorations of the Great Plant Escape website, complete their plant drawings, and draw the lifecycle of a plant. The work was due by the end of the class. If st udents had extra time, they were to work on social studies assignments or read independently. On Monday when Star took a personal day (day four of the unit), students apparently worked in small groups to research and create presentations about plant life cycles because Tuesday computer, student groups did their presentations at tables. Half the students presented to the other half of the class and then switched places. Each class had five or six presentations. About half the presentations were slideshows and half were posters. For the presentations, each group had researched a plant of their choice and created a way to show the life cycle of that plant. Students chose tr ees, flowers, and agriculture plants. For the students who lived on farms, this project drew mostly on their personal experiences. After the plant cycle unit ended, Star taught a two day unit on the human respiratory system to her Block 1 and Block 2 (rea ding) classes. I saw only one of the days of instruction, but was told Star would teach two day lessons on each human body system. For the one day I observed, the lesson focused on lungs.

PAGE 235

222 In the whole group setting, Star showed the students a colorful boo klet with information about lungs. She conducted a picture walk over the four pages students would be reading in small groups as a reciprocal teaching process (Palinscar & Brown, 1984) She had uploaded the reciprocal teaching document on Google Classroom for students to copy into their own folders. Star had made black and white copies of the booklet for each student. In addition, students were expected to watch a BrainPOP movie on cells ( brainpop.com/science/cellularlifeandgenetics/cells/ ) and take the quiz. They could take the quiz as often as they needed until they scored at least 70%. When their score was high enough, the y were required to email the score to Star. As soon as students settled into their reciprocal teaching groups, Star called a reading group to the kidney table with her. This meant several groups were missing members and could not begin the lungs reading. These students were told to start the BrainPOP video, which was intended to be done independently. At the kidney table, Star picture walked students through the remaining pages in the booklet. She summarized the information on each page for the students. She eventually called every student to the kidney table for the picture walks. In Block 1, I worked with a four person team of students at first. They did not lose a member to the kidney table reading group until the second group was called up. As the four students started to read the first page from the lung brochure, it became clear the reading level of the booklet was too advanced for the students. They used their Chromebooks to look up science words, such as alveoli, bronchioles, diaphragm, and capillar y. Some students used voice commands and some typed the words. Often the definitions were as difficult for them to understand as the words were difficult to sound out. The students in Block 1 were anxious to get

PAGE 236

223 their work done, though, so they plowed thro ugh the reading whether they had understood the information or not When students began watching the Brain POP cells video, they again encountered advanced language. The student who had worked with me on the BrainPOP video on chlorophyll, also sat with me as she worked on the cells video using her pattern of keeping two tabs open, one for the video and one for the quiz. Two students who were learning English as an additional language were generally reluctant to ask me for help. I sat at their table to che ck in with them as they listened to the video. They asked a couple of questions about vocabulary, which I answered. They showed relief, though, when the ESL specialist came into the room. About half of the students had difficulty emailing the quiz results to the teacher. Some and last name followed by the district s tandard web address (for Star Ewing, it became sewing@districtaddress) Students seemed unable to recognize the blend of first initial and last name as referring to the teacher. Confusion may have resulted because the blend of letters created a familiar wo rd and no longer looked like her last name. Writing the email address on the board probably would have helped. In Block 2, students encountered the same issues as in Block 1. In that class several boys were accustomed to sitting with me when they had as signments. Two boys qualified for language services, one for special education services, and one for behavioral modification services. These students flowed back and forth between working in their reciprocal teaching groups and sitting with me for one on o ne help with the video.

PAGE 237

224 None of the reciprocal teaching teams had finished by the end of the class, and Star said they would finish the next day. Constitution, Bill of Rights, an d branches of government. I observed six lessons, each 40 60 minutes long usually near the end of the day. The usual timeslot was when Star had taught science units in the fall. On the first day of the unit, students brainstormed their rights as a citizen Students struggled to come up with rights, and Star eventually prompted them to think about rights such as voting. Star then showed the BrainPOP movie, U.S. Constitution ( br ainpop.com/socialstudies/ushistory/usconstitution/ ). Star did not discuss the video with students, and it was difficult to tell how much students understood. She did have them look back at their brainstormed list and decide whether any rights should be add ed or removed. Star may have taken her lesson from the BrainPOP lesson plan Do I Have a Right? ( educators.brainpop.com/lesson plan/do i have a right/ ) because she then opened th e iCivics icivics.org/games/do i have right ). The teacher engaged the whole class in playing the game while she controlled the mouse. Star gave little instruction for playing and, as time passed, the game became faster paced so students, especially those who could not read well, may have gotten lost. Although the game was about applying the Bill of Rights, students lacked background knowledge and may not have made conne ctions among the video about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the game. Star did not make connections explicit. The whole class played the game for about 45 minutes. Many students were invested in winning, and several higher performing students sh owed impatience when Star did not react in the game as quickly as they would have liked.

PAGE 238

225 On the second day of the unit, Star showed the first half of the Citizen Me slideshow from iCivics ( icivics.org/teachers/lesson plans/citizen me ) for a whole group discussion. This portion of the slideshow covered Levels of citizenship (nation, state, city, school, and home) as well a s Sources of citizenship (U.S. Constitution, state constitution, city charter, school handbook, and adults in charge). Star had downloaded and printed copies of the two pyramid worksheets for student to write the levels and sources. Each worksheet was an u pside down pyramid with five sections. The top and widest section was nation and the smallest section was designated for home. Possibly this was to suggest that students had the broadest rights and responsibilities at the national level, although that was not stated in the slideshow or by Star. She directed students to write the information from the slideshow on their papers, which was often a lengthy process. Star stopped the class before the worksheet was completed and gave them about five minutes at the The third day of the unit, Star met in the whole group area to finish the worksheet from the day before. When the discussion ended, students had time to work on unfinished work, play the iCivics game, or read. The following day, Star met with students in whole group to show them instructions in their Chromebooks at their seats. Star the n handed out a two sided worksheet for students to complete based on the resources she provided. The worksheet was a free download from Teachers Pay Teachers ( teacherspayteachers.com/FreeDownload/Branches of Government Graphic Organizer for Research 149264 ). Students were also directed to specific pages in older social studies textbooks on a cart at the front of the room. Students co uld work in pairs, small groups with specialists, or independently.

PAGE 239

226 I worked with a group of six students and a reading specialist at the side table. The students in our group had difficulty comprehending the websites and the social studies books. Most of the information was completely new to the students who were not sure what was important. Eventually, the reading specialist and I resorted to explaining the branches of government and then helping students come up with answers to the questions. While we w orked with the students who required reading help, Star played at least one game of Speed, the At some point, Star put away the cards, called a few students to the table with her, and pointe d to where in the books or websites they should read. This was the final day before a long weekend, which Star was extending by taking a personal day on Monday. When Star and I returned on the following Tuesday, the students and Star met in whole group. S tar presented the second half of the Citizen Me lesson from iCivics focused on rights and responsibilities. Star had printed and copied the second group of two worksheets for students to fill out. Each worksheet had a triangle with five sections where stud ents had to write in a right or responsibility for each level. The slideshow provided sample answers to fill the blocks for each level, although students were encouraged to come up with their own ideas for school and home rights and responsibilities. Part way through the lesson, the school secretary came into the classroom to get lotion or a facial wash Star sold as a side business. The conversation took about fifteen minutes while students sat in whole group and waited for the lesson to continue. When the lesson ended, The final day of the social studies unit was a test on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and e and posted it in

PAGE 240

227 Classroom. Students then downloaded the test from Classroom into their own accounts. The test the questions did not align with the information students h ad written in their notes. Additionally, the questions s Even though students were allowed to use their notes and any other resources to find the answers, they struggled with the test. I worked with the reading specialist and six students. The reading specialist pulled easy readers on U.S. government from the library collection. While I read the questions aloud and explained what the questions meant, the reading specialist looked for the answers in the easy read ers and gave the books, opened to the right pages, to the students to scan for the answers. Students were not done by the end of class time and would need to finish during study hall. After school that day, Star commented on her struggle to find materials for her social On the last day of observation, social studies time was used for a full campus meeting in one classroom. There, the 5/6 campus teachers explained the social studies summative assessment project students would be doing for the following two weeks. Students were to plan a seven day road trip in the U S on a budget. They had the option of working in teams or individually. To demonstrate the expectations, one teacher presented a slideshow of a trip he had planned for himself and his wife. Throughout the presentation of his plan, he addressed the multitude of choices students could make: destination s, types of lodging, tourist attractions, and sources for food The teacher also displayed the budget he had constructed. Although the teacher relied on a spreadsheet and slideshow for his demonstration, students were permitted to track their travel plans on paper or with technologies of their choice. The teachers set values for the

PAGE 241

228 cost of gasoline, the number of miles per gallon of gasoline, and the maximum number of miles that could be covered in a day. Student Chromebooks, assigned to students Projector Sound system, used consistently all day MacBook for printing Printer (housed in hall) e I have defined digital repertoire as the collection of technology knowledge, skills, aptitude, beliefs, and attitudes an individual holds. This collection is constantly expanding as individuals have additional digital experiences, interact with other di gital users, and participate in technology using communities. As I observed and talked with Star during the 2016 2017 school since that school year. Digital K nowledge In the digital repertoire, knowledge refers to the overall understanding of digital tools. This means what technology can do, what tools are available, and how digital tools are used by teachers help students and peers with a tool or activity, or self assessments.

PAGE 242

229 Star admitted she had limited knowledge o reluctantly transitioned to smartphones about two years earlier. At the time of the study, though, Star considered th e phone her most important personal technology tool. Otherwise, Star rarely talked about digital tools. The district had distributed MacBook laptops to teachers four years earlier, and that was school daily. When the laptop did not work properly, Star took it to a colleague on the 5/6 campus teaching team for trouble shooting. Over the year, the laptop had to be returned to the district at least twice for repairs. Star knew a little about iPads because in 2015, the school had provided a class set of iPads for each classroo m The seven iPads remaining in the classroom (only four worked and all were outdated) were charged every night, but went unused except when students were learning their state s and capitals in April. The iPads had a free states and capitals game loaded on them. Star had once owned a Zen portable media player and an early version of an ereader. She no longer used either one. In August, 2016, Star had won a Kindle Fire and it wa s rarely used. In her personal life, Star had carefully selected apps for her phone. In addition to calls and texts, she used the phone for music, maps, Facebook, and a fitness tracker. She had loaded a few games for her thirteen year Digital S kills What individuals know about functioning with technology, such as how it is or can be used, makes up the digital skills of the repertoire. As outlined in the theoretical framework in Chapter 1, digital skills ar e first developed in the home and in social communities outside the

PAGE 243

230 home. Skills continue to develop as a result of interactions within social communities and acquisition of new digital tools. o technology came when experience. Additionally, she remembered a typing program at home: We did have them [computers] in elementary school but like we had to go to the lab to use them. We practiced some typing. I know we wrote little paragraphs and stuff. I know And at home, I guess I had something because I did a little typing p rogram. I could make The faster I typed, the more I could get going. That, I remember, I really liked. released in 1993 after Star had turned eleven. Since the family got their first home computer when Star was twelve and in middle school, her access to the typing game likely began at the same time. Star remembered most the hours she spent on instant messa ging in Hotmail during her secondary school years: I remember the dial up and when instant messaging came out and how that was such a big deal, being able to talk to my friends back and forth without actually talking on the randma got me my own [phone] line because it was slow, kind of a pain in the butt. In her first year of college, Star shared a college provided desktop with her roommat e for writing papers, emailing, and tracking church attendance. Her remaining college education, in the early 2000s, was as a distance student through ITV classes. She did not have any computer ssional experiences with technology. Star took advantage of some technology training in the first district where she taught for eight years, starting in 2004.

PAGE 244

231 Where I was before, if I needed to learn about something, I'd look and there would usually be a had very specific training there on the gradebook and print outs that would show you here's how you do this. not offer much digital technology. Star still used an overhead projector, although by her final year, she had a digital projector. The one year she taught at another school, her classroom had a single iPad for students. In contrast, Star faced a wealth o f technology when she started at REA in 2013. Not only were she and her husband given their first laptops, district provided MacBooks, but also, Star faced a student computer initiative at her new school: When I came to [REA], we had just gotten iPads so we were a one to one iPad school and I was just overwhelmed. Like I had never used Google Drive, like I'd never used the Google platform at all. When I asked about district provided training for using the technology, Star expressed frustration: They do [technology classes] she offered are no longer available and it's more getting back to basics on how to teach vocabulary, teaching reading, collaborating with students, asking quality questions. district as the technology coordinator for the school. As coordinator, the librarian served as the liaison between the district IT department and the s chool. When students or teachers had computer problems, she determined whether she could fix the problems or needed to call district IT support staff. The librarian also organized iPad trainings for teachers: When we had a librarian, she did, what was that called? It was a group of kids who were kind of tech mentors so they knew how to use different apps on the iPad and they might specialize in an app or two. So, if you wanted to use a particular app, they might come to your class and teach you the app and get you started. And then she'd even bring them in

PAGE 245

232 for some staff meetings and we'd get to rotate around and use different apps. But that was all her putting it together. That was not any district led or anything. That was helpful. Again, knowing you have kids who know what they're doing and know more ways to use it instead of the basic I'm going to create a comic strip. That was good. [The librarian] has been gone for two years now. When Star and her husband transitioned to smartphones, Star took respons ibility for learning about how to use the phones for both of them. She remarked: phones. S figure out how things work, because we have the same phones, and then teach him little something on m y phone, I can search it and see what it says. Other than mastering the phone, Star did not talk about taking any steps to develop digital technology skills through her own experimentation or searching. Star and technology in 2016 2017. At the start of t he school year, REA transitioned from then outdated iPads to new Chromebooks for students: I feel like we stepped back since we went to Chromebooks but what do you do? These ool technology. You know this is a new tool, you haven't used it before, so we're all learning are you content eventually. mounted in the ceiling to replace the old digital projector on a cart provided in previous years. Star found the new configuration easier to use, although the Ma cBook dongle had to be replaced at least twice during the year. Chromebooks. When students had difficulties with their Chromebooks, she invariably asked whether any student in the room could fix the problem. She explained:

PAGE 246

233 picture here, who knows how to take a snapshot or freeze your screen? They know how do so mine functions differently. So they become teachers for me and for other kids. If no one in the class solved the problems, Star sent the students across the hall to another 5/6 campus teacher who had extensive experience troubleshooting. In fact, when Star developed problems with her M acBook during the year, she immediately consulted her teammate. Sometimes the problems required new parts or more extensive interventions. Then, Star or someone else on staff called district IT for help. A district IT technician invariably took the compute r back to the district office for a day or longer, and Star was temporarily issued a student Chromebook, which she struggled to use. Star had taken at least one class on how to use the interactive whiteboard, but she did not feel confident about her skil ls. She commented: that projector, but it was more like turn it on, here 's how you calibrate it, here's the pen. With the pen, you can change colors, you can erase it, you can save it here. I think they showed us how to show a video on it and you can stop it from the screen, really basic stuff, I guess. focusing on content, oh, what did th ey just say, do I need to go somewhere else with that question, do they not have background I thought they had so I have to fill that in, I want to be able to navigate the tool with ease because if I can't and it's detracting from the pace, then it's not w orth it to me anymore. It becomes a distraction instead of a tool for me or them. As someone with little personal experience with or interest in digital tools, Star depended on being taught digital skills through classes. She did not ask her teammates, w ho used their interactive boards regularly, to help her, and she did not set aside time on her own to explore.

PAGE 247

234 She did make a distinction between being taught the operating manual version how to simply use a digital tool and the pedagogical training how to use the tools effectively to teach. She had never taken a class where she felt she was given pedagogical support for using digital tools. Digital A ptitude to the inbred desire for learning how technology works. Star showed no passion for technology and, in fact, limited it in her personal life. In comparison to her teammates on the 5/6 campus team, Star demonstrated the least enthusiasm for technology tools She also showed little capacity for transferring skills across devices. When her MacBook was being repaired, she had to use a Chromebook one day. She eventually set the Chromebook aside and taught without using a computer and projector because she thoug ht everything was aptitude for expanding her use. inexperience with t echnologies limited her vision for how it could be used. When she could not imagine how a tool could be used in her classroom, she abandoned it. Some people if they're big idea, they just need to see an overview and there! got it! and be on their way. But me, I need you to show me all the different ways that I can use it for maybe you do Plickers [an online formative assessment tool at plickers.com/ ], but you break it down into all these different ways you can use it and then what do you do with the data you get. teach her how technology should be used.

PAGE 248

235 Digital B eliefs The personal convictions individuals have influence how they act. The beliefs about technology can be make about which digital tools they use and how. Star believed technology and, therefore, used their phones as their primary digital device. Additionally, she contended students used home devices for entertainment and were unmonitored. Star characterized students at home in this way: At home it is just a toy. It's jus t for fun or I entertain myself because it's raining and I can't go play outside, so my mom gave me the device and wanted me to sit and be entertained so I'm not bugging her. Star and her teaching teammates believed using technology for entertainment, su ch as games, kept students from developing interpersonal relationships. This was reflected both in Time. Star mentioned her concern on my first day of observation same concern in an interview: the same game, and they consider that interacting but it often looks more like what I saw in the preschool o r word for that: parallel play. I see parallel play in kids who are too old to be doing parallel play so often. I think it in some ways it degrades social interactions. al beliefs about school use of technology. At school, Star believed conversations among the teaching team. Star explained her perception: When we had the iPads, it was mostly kind of games, so how do you use it as an games or you'll lose your Chromebook. Because we were all consistent, we didn't see it that much but there are still thos e kids who are just like little addicts.

PAGE 249

236 example, the team regularly mentioned one particular student who became oppositional if he for music and games whenever he wanted. In a rage, the student would wreck classrooms and destroy equipment. The student eventually lost all computer privileges at school. By the end of the year, the student had made friends and was participating in class es. While the teachers attributed the change to being weaned from technology, I wondered how many other factors might have contributed to his improvement. Even so, I considered this student an anomaly, while the teachers talked about this student as more v isible evidence of a less visible, but pervasive, problem among students. They had more experience than I with their students, and believed they had anecdotal evidence to support their views. When I asked Star about the educational purpose of technology in the classroom, she responded: too. We have to teach them how to navigate we just have to teach them how to use it and set boundaries and be willing to take it away and operate without it. emp hasize learning social behaviors as the goal of using digital devices in school. Also embedded in the answer was the belief students needed to use technology so they and the school would not be outdated. St udents at REA had been one to one with technology throughout their years at the school. During their primary years, they had had a special where the librarian taught library skills and computer skills. But the librarian position had

PAGE 250

237 been eliminated two yea rs earlier. Students, then, were dependent on classroom teachers to teach technology skills. Star indicated the 5/6 campus team had spent time at the beginning of the year familiarizing students with the Chromebooks. Although she did not discuss how thos e lessons We're thinking of doing a Tech U or Tech 101 right at the very beginning with all of the kids to go through retrieving docs, getting on Classroom, finding assignments, tur ning stuff in, kind of going through different processes that force them to do those things so Additionally, Star talked about the kinds of skills students could learn in a technology class: on docs, how do you name docs, how do you share docs, how do you access your email? and delete. Star also talke d about the importance of teaching students how to conduct research effectively and efficiently: Trying to teach them how to research and how do you pull what's relevant from it and not "oh, I saw it on YouTube" or images. "I saw a picture of it in images so that's how I researched it" and I'm like, "Research isn't just looking at pictures. I would expect you read words first and then go and look at pictures." So there's still a lot of frustration with that. As I worked with students in the classroom, I co nsistently saw students conducting research by activating a Google image search and copying pictures. In her personal life, Star resisted a proliferation of digital devices. Of the nine devices Star li sted as elements on the repertory grid, only the cell phone was strongly differentiated from all other devices across the ten constructs

PAGE 251

238 she identified. The cell phone appeared to be the only device she valued highly as a solely personal technology. All ot her devices were either more educational than personal or of low value in her life. Digital A ttitude s Attitudes are the visible representation of beliefs. In analyzing digital attitudes, I y, her students and families outside skills needs. Star freely admitted her lack of experience with technology and disint erest in new devices. She did not consider her own lack of technical knowledge or curiosity a drawback because she and her students worked on different devices. She was proud about regularly asking students to assist their peers with problem solving, and h er students were eager to volunteer. When she had problems with technology, she leaned on her co workers to solve the glitches. One teammate, in particular, had a high aptitude for digital devices and served as an unofficial technology coach across the bui lding. Star did not transfer training to practice unless the training gave her specific ideas of how to implement a new tool pedagogically. For instance, during the school year she took an after school class on robotics. She found it fun to play with the robots, but could not see how it would fit into her instruction. In contrast, the sustainability teachers across the hall, who were paraprofessionals, found the use of robots a great fit for their instruction. They designed environmental obstacle courses for Bee B ot robots.

PAGE 252

239 Star had an interactive whiteboard in her classroom she had never turned on, and she indicated her only use for the document camera was when she was modeling fiction writing in her lowest performing small groups. and their families. access to technologies outside of school. She indicated many families had only their cell phones for internet access, and she advocated for them with the middle school during enrollment. The middle s chool expected families to download and print registration forms, and Star protested on behalf of the families. I know like probably their email is going to their phone, so I really on ly do a monthly update that has important dates so they know what is coming up because otherwise they're calling the school because they don't think to go to the website and check the school calendar which is probably hard to see on your device. dagogical attitude about using technology in school. Star and her colleagues believed students used digital devices as toys at home, and their responsibility was to train students on using digital devices as tools for learning. For Star, this may have been an evolving perspective. In past years, Star had enjoyed using apps on the iPads to enhance classroom instruction: I think some of the apps we had -Comic Life, Video One, iMovie, giving kids just a kind of project and you choose how you want to show m e your learning. I mean they did reflections of even their public speaking, presentations, organization, putting something to be able to tell my kids, remember who and it wasn't something we had a school from California. That was set up through Newsela so we read the same article and then we were able to do like a paired text conversation with the other school. That was cool.

PAGE 253

240 However, her de scription of a creative use of technology in the 2016 2017 school year had a far different feel: I guess something that we tried this year was Google Classroom. This was the first year we had done it. Before they'd have their docs in drive and they'd shar e it with you but your email box gets flooded and then you have to pull them up and look at every one of them. It was hard to manage and it was even, like if I wanted to grade something I might have to print it out so I'm taking a huge amount of time going through my email, pulling each one up, printing it, making sure it printed, then oh, did you put your name on it? Now I've printed all these and I don't know who they belong to. Classroom was huge and we really started toward the end of the year, you know on our social studies rotation, we each created our own Google Classroom page with our rotation but then we added each other so we were all collaborators. Everyone could see what each rotation was doing and we even shared it with specialists so when they tried to put as many of the resources on there way easier to grade, to know who has turned it in and who hasn't, and that will definitely continue. I want to get in and see if I can make it even better for how I use it or the kids use it. I think that wa s a bett er start for my sanity and kids The two approaches had different purposes. The use of comics, movies, and Skype collaboration across locales seemed to enhance the academics and student involvement. The use of Google Classroom as a management tool seemed to focus on administrative tasks such as grading and communication among professionals. The difference in approaches may have been related to the change from iPads to Chromebooks. Star acknowledged with Chromebooks, her students had lost the abilit y to make movies, although they could still make slideshows in Google Classroom. To Star, movie making was a more robust activity than building slideshows. Star mentioned two areas where students lacked the technical skills they needed: housekeeping tasks and researching skills. She indicated she and her teaching teammates had spent time at the beginning of the year teaching students housekeeping tasks, such as file naming, organizing files, and op erating within Google Classroom. In my observations, I did not see any specific instruction on using the

PAGE 254

241 Chromebooks. Star did coach students on how to navigate Newsela and reminded them about quizzes in BrainPOP. Otherwise, Star assumed students were more proficient than she with Chromebooks. Aligning with her belief about what skills students need, Star required her homeroom students to learn typing over February and March. She considered typing an essential skill students were missing and found a way to introduce it. Researching and conducting effective searches were also areas Star mentioned where particularly weak. Not only was Google images the primary search engi ne students used, but for many students, particularly the highly distractible, image searches robbed time from the work they needed to do. Yet, I never saw Star teach a lesson on how to conduct an effective search, nor did I hear her coach students on bett er practices. When I tried to coach students, they dismissed the information. only two kinds of ants, black ones and red ones. When I asked where he had learned that, he said he had researched it in Google images. I suggested he do a text search and read about ants, but he was absolutely convinced. The next day, the same student told me he had research other animals nds of worms, two kinds of fish, two position and look at reliable websites with text as well as images. Digital repertoires are massive, complex, and always evolving and expanding. The limited to what I learned from what Star said and did. Even then, not everything I saw or heard

PAGE 255

242 was included; I limited the discus sion to aspects related to her personal life and teaching. The instructed with, and interacted around digital tools. Composite Description of Fifth and Sixth Grade Stu dents Composite Summary of Technologies Used by Five Students The 5/6 campus of REA had about 100 enrolled students spread across four classrooms. I conducted research in one classroom, although I observed all campus students because of the platooning syst em used by the teachers. Of the 100 fifth and sixth graders, I interviewed five students (Table 9) I was hampered because the interviews had to be conducted during Connection Time with students who had completed their assignments. Most of the available students were from more affluent homes with two parent incomes. One student lived with only his moth er and four siblings in affordable housing. All students spoke English at home. Max was the only student of the five who did not attend REA for his elementary years. Through Grade 5, Max had attended a large suburban school in another district. His previou s school had an active technology lab and carts of computers for classrooms. He enrolled in REA for the sixth grade year. Of the five students interviewed, only Mustang remembered using a computing device before starting school. Initial in school experien ces ranged from kindergarten exposure in computer labs for Mustang and Max to fourth grade introductions to iPads at REA for Kat and Elena. Jade remembered his first out of school and in school exposure to computing devices as being serendipitously similar uses of iPads w hen he was a second grader ( Table 9). Since Mustang, Kat, Elena, and Jade all attended REA at the same time and yet reported different

PAGE 256

243 initial school technology experiences, it may be possible they were in different primary classrooms with teachers who had varying levels of interest in using digital devices. Table 9. Topics Devices Jade Kat Mustang Elena Max Grade 5 5 5 6 6 Gender M F F F M First Computing Experience 7 year old iPad 4 th grade in classroom 3 year old tablet remember; probably early school years K school technology lab First School Experience 2 nd Grade iPads 4 th grade iPad K typing in lab; 1:1 in 3 rd grade 4 th grade iPad K in lab; 1:1 in 4 th grade Home Access Camera Yes Desktop computer rarely allowed Family computer Homework use only Ereader Rarely used Owns but does not use Game system Handheld Nintendo iPod Music Music Phone Portable DVD player Plugs into car for videos No Tablet iPad mini iPad Samsung, but does not use Non functional Internet Yes Yes Yes Yes No

PAGE 257

244 All students but Max had internet access at home. Four students had tablet devices, although Elena had little interest in using her tablet, and Max said his was non functional. Desktop computers were present in three homes, although only Elena was permitte d to use the desktop regularly. Mustang and Max had permission only if they needed to complete homework assignments. Max explained the computer had been a recent gift from his grandfather because Max himself did not have homework and so could not use the computer. Ereaders were not popular devices. Mustang and Elena owned Kindle Fire devices, but neither girl used their Kindles often. At school Mustang used Learning Ally, a multimedia book site, for the three children daily on an iPad. Mustang followed along with a copy of the book on the other side of the room. Students generally did not have game systems. One student, Jade, claimed a handheld Nintendo game, and Elena said her older sister had two game systems she sometimes shared. None of the students owned cell phones, although Elena expected to get one for her next birthday. Of all the students, Elena own ed the most devices. However, Elena expressed little interest in technology, preferring instead to be outdoors. Composite REA Student Digital Repertoire As explained in the conceptual framework of the research, digital repertoires are highly individualiz ed collections of what individuals know, understand, and believe about technology. Social interactions within communities promote some aspects of repertoires as salient and leave other aspects unacknowledged. In creating a composite student repertoire, I a m drawing from

PAGE 258

245 t presume every student knew or understood technology at the same level and in the same way. Digital K nowledge Digital knowledge can be developed as students interact with one another and with devices to accomplish tasks. Some fifth and sixth grade students had extensive knowledge of coding and pursued opportunities to use Minecraft to design projects. Other students preferred working with physical materials and used their Chromebooks only when a teacher directed. Because one of the male teachers wa s a technology leader for the 5/6 campus and the school as a whole, students with digital interests gravitated to his classroom for any unscheduled time and for project work. The teacher was comfortable with multiple activities happening in his classroom a t the same time, and a third grader was often sent to his room to use technology as a reward for good behavior. In contrast, Star showed little affinity for technology and minimal tudents in the tech hang out classroom developed significantly more digital knowledge than students in any other classroom. The students and teachers all identified one fifth grade male as particularly knowledgeable about technology devices. The student acted as a single person audio visual department for the grade level as well as for school assemblies. I had minimal contact with the student because he was assigned to another homeroom and, when he had free time, preferred to be in the technology hang out classroom. Students seemed to have limited access to digital tools outside school. In my observations, I noted two instances when student cell phones were visible. On the playground,

PAGE 259

246 one girl huddled inside a climbing structure to hide her use of a cell p hone; the teacher who noticed the phone sent the girl inside to put the phone away. Then, during a campus meeting in one classroom, two boys got distracted by a cell phone. The boys were not visible to the teachers at first, but their inattention eventuall y became evident. They claimed they had found the phone on the floor. The phone had a severely cracked screen and was not operable. Another student The most c ommon digital device students mentioned was a tablet, a term that referred to iPads and Android devices. The students who lived in residential neighborhoods and ranches had tablets at home. The student in affordable housing did not have a functioning table t at home. Students did not talk about game systems or home computer systems. When they owned tablets, the students used the tablets for games, reading, taking pictures and videos, and online explorations. Therefore they did not own or want digital camera s or ereaders. One student, Jade, streamed videos on their televisions, and some students had dvd players attached to their televisions. The digital tools used i n instruction, such as projectors, interactive whiteboards, document cameras, and printers, were not considered technology by the students, and, other than the printer, were not recognizable by name alone. Digital S kills Fifth and sixth grade students co nsidered themselves low to moderate in digital skills. Max, who had had computer lab lessons at another school for grades K 5, said, It's not like really great skills, but it's not like I don't know how to do anything on them. Like I know how to do, like I know how to take pictures and stuff.

PAGE 260

247 Mustang rated herself as a five on a scale of one to ten with ten being expert, and Elena Yet Mustang was the student who figured out how to manage the Brain POP video in one tab and the BrainPOP quiz in the other. She also manipulated the video progress bar with facility to locate desired segments of the video. In fact, students showed facility with opening multiple tabs and navigating among them. This was evident when st udents were involved in reciprocal teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1984) and had multiple tabs open to access a timer, an online dictionary, and the Google Classroom document. In many elementary schools, s tudents acquire basic digital skills in computer labs. At REA, a librarian had taught typing and some basic skills in the past. When the 5/6 campus students were in third and fourth grades, the library position had been eliminated. At that time, the school provided iPads for every student, and teachers assumed daily use of the iPads would experiences with technology differed significantly from class to class. At the start of the 2016 2017 school year, the 5/6 campus transitioned from iPads to Chromebooks. The teachers and students cooperatively learned to use the Chromebooks and to manage Google Classroom. At a 5/6 campus meeting I attended in November, the tea chers reviewed behavior expectations for Chromebook usage, such as what students could and could not access, how to carry the computers, and how infractions would be handled. results, inserting pictures into Google documents, and finding webpages. Usu ally, Star asked volunteers

PAGE 261

248 Once a student asked for my help because his screen ha d rotated upside down. Before I respond ed a classmate rattled off a series of keyboard commands to correct the problem. Students showed facility with navigating in Google documents and submitting documents ake and insert photographs of Lego Express Builds twice. The assignment offered two challenges for the students: taking the photo and inserting the photo into the document at the right place. Figure 2 3 relatively flat, the camera angle was not critical. Still, t o maneuver the build and camera for the best photo, the student repeatedly placed his cheek on the table to look at the computer screen. Because the Chromebook cameras were front facing only, students needed to close their screens partially to capture photographs of their Lego Express Builds (see Figure 2 3 ). Not only did students need to aim the camera lens for just the right angle, but they also needed to use ke yboard shortcuts to actually take the pictures. In order to see how the pictures would look, students placed their cheeks on the tabletop or floor or held their computers at odd angles and contorted their bodies to get particular photographic angle s When students tried to hold their

PAGE 262

249 Chromebooks aloft and have budd ies press the keyboard shortcuts to take the pictures, the photos were often blurry. One student stacked books to build a support column she could lean her computer against so the camera would hov er over her build, but then she could not angle her head sufficiently to see the picture on the computer screen. adopted various processes for inserting the photographs into the documents. For some students, this was a fast, one step process and for others, it took three or more steps. Students with low technical skills often ended up with the pictures in the wrong places in the documents. These students would often delet know how to move pictures around on a page. Star believed students needed to be taught computer housekeeping skills such as making folders, organizing files, determining which files to k eep and which to delete, and searching for files. She also was frustrated by their lack of skill in conducting online searches. Students most often used images searches in Google to conduct research. Digital A ptitude access to technology outside of school, or because of being in a classroom where the teacher showed little enthusiasm for technology, students did not often engage in co nversations about technology Some students showed a high aptitude for coding in Minecr aft and for creating slideshows about science topics, but I became aware of those students primarily through campus meetings when small groups demonstrated to their ion I party to the teacher and said a relative had uploaded to Facebook an embarrassing video of him

PAGE 263

250 singing karaoke. The student had seen the video on his relati to Facebook to see if it really had been uploaded. Digital B eliefs Fifth and sixth grade students did not seem to think abstractly about technology use in the classroom. They knew the types of tasks they had done in th e past, and they did not imagine trying to incorporate other digital tools or tasks into the classroom. This may reflect the rigid control placed on technology use. Students never had free time to explore on the Chromebooks. During Connection Time, Chromeb ooks were closed. Online games were always forbidden in school. The one student who consistently accessed online games and music had his computer privileges revoked for more than half the year. Even when students worked on computers, when the teacher said students were expected to stop their work immediately and fold their Chromebook lids down to a 45 degree angle. Failure to comply quickly drew warnings about revoking computer rights. When students created their own summative assessme nt science projects, they had freedom to use technology if they wished. The only technology based projects students attempted were slideshows and Minecraft animations. At least two thirds of students chose to either create poster presentations or build phy sical displays, such as water erosion or volcano educational tools controlled by teachers. Digital A ttitudes If attitudes can be discerned from what people do, th en observing students on computers when they finished their work was a method for understanding attitudes. Most REA students

PAGE 264

251 typing during the second observation pe riod, even when they did not try to master touch typing. In content area classes, students completed assignments in Google Classroom and then either read novels or scanned online Newsela articles. Google image searches may have been the most subversive wa y students developed to make computer use fun. Highly distractible students seemed to conduct a lot of Google image searches and enjoyed looking for odd or funny images. For instance, one student spent at least fifteen minutes of study hall looking at imag es resulting from a pythons eating people voice activated image search. Students using images searches for fun learned not to show what they had found to peers; any time two students looked on the same computer, Star chided them for wasting time and being An effect of the emphasis on technology devices as tools seemed to be a dampening of interest in using technology at all for several students. All of the students interviewed indicat ed minimal use of digital tools outside of class, because of disinterest (Elena, Kat, and Mustang), or tight parental restrictions (Jade), or inaccessibility (Max). The composite digital repertoire for students represents a snapshot summary of what I obse rved and heard over the course of one year in one classroom. My knowledge of the students was fragmentary and limited by the strictures placed on students in the classroom and by the experiences of five students I interviewed. The repertoire description ca ptured my impressions and is not comprehensive.

PAGE 265

252 REA Interactions Around Technology As depicted in the theoretical framework of this research, individual digital repertoires may contribute to a collective digital repertoire of practices within a community through the social interactions around technology among community members. Faculty Interactions ventured into the room. Star was more likely to step into her colleagu when she was on her way to the office to check her mail or make copies. Before school late in April, I observed Star working at the kidney table with a colleague. Both had their computers open and Star was demonstrating how to subm it professional development credits to the district for a pay raise. The deadline for submission was that day. The women both filled out the district forms online and then had to access online transcripts to submit as well. Star had submitted credits in pa st years and, although rusty, was able to guide her first year colleague through the process. pictures from a birthday party. While the women were discussing the party, Sta black. Star attempted to restart the computer but the device did not respond. She then took the computer to the technology savvy teammate. He tried Alt +R to restore the computer, but was unsuccessful For the first fifty minutes of Conne ction Time, Star was out of the room trying to resolve the problem with her computer. She contacted the district technician who agreed to pick up the computer. In past months, the district had replaced the battery and power cord and had added memory to res olve problems with the MacBook. At this point, the district technician assumed the computer needed a new motherboard.

PAGE 266

253 When students had recess, all the teachers went to the playground with them. The male teachers generally played soccer with the student s, and Star supervised the remaining playground areas from a spot on the blacktop pad. Often Star checked her phone during recess to scroll through Facebook notifications or to send and receive texts. On a couple of days, Star texted with her husband and o Star was very private about what the problems were although the texts seemed extensive. On another occasion, Star checked the health application on her phone and noted she was low on steps for the day. She and a G rade 3/4 teacher were part of a district fitness competition To garner additional steps, Star and the colleague took a brisk walk around the playground twice. Teacher Student Interactions Interactions between teachers and students in a classroom reveal how the classroom community understands the use of technology. In the 5/6 campus, students were often regrouped for instruction and projects, so the overall campus community had mini communit ies. Each mini community had the potential to develop subtle variations of digital practices although most digital practices were probably consistent across the mini communities. Digital practices in place. Some digital practices had been established bef ore I began observing at REA. For instance, at an assembly in November, the 5/6 teaching corps reviewed the expectations for Chromebook use, which included: do not play games; close the lid immediately when asked; carry the Chromebook from class to class; plug the Chromebook in at the end of the school day; and treat the Chromebooks with respect. One specific example of treating the Chromebook with respect was to carry it with two hands rather than by the top of the open lid. However, I often saw students c arry their Chromebooks by the open lid and never heard a reprimand. Fail ure to adhere to the rules could result in losing computer privileges.

PAGE 267

254 charging stations each morning and plugging them in each afternoon. Computer monitors, an assigned job that changed weekly, checked to be sure all Chromebooks had been returned, were plugged in, and the chargers turned on at the end of the day. Students responded to an online prompt each morning and did not start Connection Time until they had submitted their responses. The practice was so well established by the time I started observations that the two times no prompt had been posted left students worrying aloud about what was wrong. When one student announced there was no prompt, other st udents double checked On the firs t occasion Star said they simply did not have a prompt and could begin Connection Time early. On the second occasion, Star introduced the typing program working on their computers and close the lids half way in order to listen. Star used this phrase to ub members came to talk about activities, and when Star made adjustments during instruction My observational notes indicated mixed messages about Chromebook practices during instructional times. In November and December, Star prompted students to place planners and books at their assigned table spaces and carry their Chromebooks to the whole group gathering space at the front of the classroom. The prompting implied Chromebooks would normally be placed at the tables during whole group instruction. In lat e January when Star gave no directions about the Chromebooks prior to whole are prompted to leave your Chromebooks at the tables, my expectation is that you wi ll bring your

PAGE 268

255 because they had their Chromebooks on the floor beside them during whole group instruction. Star had not given any instruction concerning the Chromebo oks and had expected students to leave them at their table spaces. Negotiated practices. Within communities, established digital practices can be technology tools did not lend itself easily to modifications in practices, I did observe one instance when a student negotiated a different digital process for himself. Figure 2 4 A Night Divided (Nielsen, 2015) was difficult to photograph with a front facing Chromebook camera. The finished design was two sid ed and had many levels. The view shown in this picture represented the East Berlin wall with soldier guards The other side represented the easier life for those on the West Berlin side of the wall. One day students were instructed to create a Lego Expre ss Build of the independent reading they had done for the day. They were to take a photograph of the build and write a persuasive paragraph to entice others to read the book. One student built an elaborate two sided scene (Figure 2 4 ) to illustrate the book A Night Divided (Nielsen, 2015) The student wanted his picture for his persuasive paragraph facing

PAGE 269

256 camera angled to accomplish it. I took photos of each side for him, but because I was not a s taff member, I could not email the photographs to his school email account. Star asked what he was trying to do. When he explained, Star offered to take a photograph fro m above the build with her camera and email it to him. Although t his did not change the practice of taking photographs in the classroom for other students, it did represent a negotiated change for the one student. Student Student Interactions On e way individuals expand their digital repertoires is through social exchanges with more knowledgeable others while using digital devices and applications (Esteban Guitart & Moll, 2014) In schools and classrooms many exchanges around technology involve student to student interactions Rosenblatt (1995) argued the word interaction implied a one way process while transactions described a more complex process where participants influenced one another to change. Student to student interactio ns around digital technologies were transactions that differed in their potential to change the participants. Transactions with limited potential for improvement. Sometimes the exchanges between students involved little communication about the process. These exchanges had minimal effect on digital repertoires because the receiver did not necessarily learn from the giver. For instance, in class when students had difficulty navigating to a particular page on a site like Newsela, Star asked for volunteers t and solved the problem without talking to the student. In these transactions, the problem solver solidified his or her skills without transmitting the knowledge to the student with the problem.

PAGE 270

257 T he interaction may have widened the technical gap between the volunteer and the student with For instance, one day after students had been exploring the N ewsela site to nominate and vote on an article to read, Star assigned the selected article to the class. She told students to refresh their screens so they could see the assignment. While most students knew how to refresh the screen, some did not. Star dir ected those students who knew to help students who did not. clicked. His actions were so quickly and silently done that the receiving students could not follow wha t he did. The transactions around refresh gave the volunteer student two additional opportunities to practice his skills but, because his actions were not accompanied by speech or involvement of the two receiving students, they left the two students uncert ain of how to manage the technical task. Transactions promoting change to digital repertoires. In some instances, students engaged in interactions that demonstrated an exchange of digital knowledge and skills. For example, one student was absent on the d ay Star introduced the typing application that had been student. The volunteer talked the returning student through the process of finding the icon and navigat ing to the typing lessons. Because the returning student was coached through the process, his digital repertoire expanded and on the following mornings, he could navigate to the typing program on his own. On another occasion, I overheard a student say t closed. The student was sharing specialized knowledge with a peer, which may have increased

PAGE 271

258 l repertoire. The teacher, who also overheard, commented this was a shortcut students used when they were on a forbidden site and had closed it quickly to hide it from the teacher. The shortcut would restore the closed tab once the teacher moved away. Wh en a student approached me at the start of h omeroom one morning to solicit help in restoring his screen, which was upside down, another classmate spoke up immediately with a keystroke combination that would accomplish the task. Four or five students nearby immediately tried the keystroke combination to see how it would affect their screens. This transaction among two students and me rippled to students within earshot to increase their digital skills as well. in almost constant use because it was the only computer that could print. One student had used the computer at the end of one day and was absent the next. A group of stu dents struggled to change the log in so they could access their documents. Students tried several strategies including restarting the computer, logging out and restarting the computer, and logging onto the computer with their credentials. Still, they could not access their files. Eventually, they asked me to look at the computer. I noted the absent student had logged onto his Google account, not the computer. I showed students how to log someone out of Google and log into their own accounts. Throughout the day, I noted students coaching their peers to log out of Google after printing. Summary of Interactions Around Technology her unfamiliarity with Chromebooks. Star regularly Chromebook problems. Sometimes the volunteers used verbal coaching to assist; sometimes the volunteers solved the problems for the student. Transactions had the potential to increase digital repertoires when th e transactions were examples of coaching someone rather than appropriating

PAGE 272

259 solvin g transactions during class. This description of REA attempted to capture evidences of how technology was used and understood by teachers and students in one rural classroom. The ruralness of Rural Junction and the particular characteristics of the broade r rural community within the school attendance area shaped the opportunities students had to learn with and learn about digital tools. Despite being part of a large, primarily suburban school district, REA blended the agrarian culture of many students with the technological futures of all students.

PAGE 273

260 CHAPTER VI ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS The two previous chapters have described how three teachers and their students in two locales used digital tools in their classrooms. Within the descriptions are additional details about backgrounds, district and school support, and other features that influence how the technologies were employed and deployed. My intent wa s to honor each classroom as its own social entity. Because teachers in each school platooned for instruction, individual classrooms were really a series of mini communities anchored by the teachers. Researchers have often suggested how digital tools oug ht to be used in schools by (Becker & Ravitz, 2001, p. 4) The research on teachers with exemplary practices prov ided a vision of what was possible. However, focusing on the best users left a hole in our knowledge about digital practices of teachers who were not education pioneers with technology. Without in depth knowledge of how moderate using teachers (B ebell et al., 2004) implemented digital tools, the education world lacked a baseline for strategizing how to nudge teachers toward the exemplary vision. This research study seeks to fill the gap in our knowledge of technology practices in moderate using classrooms by offering an in depth picture of three classrooms where elementary teachers and students are using technology daily for their work. It was not the intention of this study to evaluate technology integration in the classrooms. I did not attemp t to compare the research classrooms to an ideal standard or even to one another. Each teacher invited me in and freely shared her daily practices with the understanding I was seeking to know what was not dictate what ought to be Teachers and students al ike brought

PAGE 274

261 their best selves to the classrooms, interacted with me as a co traveler in the educational journey, and tolerated my mistakes when I misunderstood the contexts of their lives. Much of what I learned during the observations of individual class rooms was specific to the context of the locale (town or rural), the composition of the school, the school culture shaped by the administrator, lives in and out of school. Table 1 0 summarizes key characteristics of schools, teachers, and students participating in the research. Table 10 Characteristics of Schools, Teachers, and Students Characteristics Faith Natalie Star Age range Mid to late 40s Early 40s Mid 30s Degree BA BA, M A BA Teaching focus Writing and Reading Math and Reading All content except Math School TSE TSE REA Grade Level 4 th 4 th 5/6 th Student Devices Chromebooks iPads Chromebooks w/cameras Demographics TSE REA District Classification Small Rural Large Suburban School Locale Town Rural, Fringe School Size 275 300 Race/Ethnic Mix 30% Hispanic, 65% White 30% Hispanic, 65% White F&R Lunch 45% 45% Title I No Yes Technology Lab Yes No Digital Safety Training Yes No Research Skills Training Possibly School has librarian and library special No librarian, no training Keyboarding Yes Homeroom only

PAGE 275

262 Yet, some of what I observed and heard and thought about in my research role seemed to transcend the context of locale and highlight commonalities across the two schools and three classrooms. In this chapter, I respond to the research questions using knowledge gained in the 2016 2017 school year. The answers are not meant as a comparison of three classrooms but as a broad brush summary of local contexts and universal understandings. Research Question 1: Digital Tools and Their Use RQ 1: How do elementary teachers and their students in two locales (town and rural) use digital t ools? 1a. What counts in the classroom as digital technology tools? 1b. 4 influence their technology use in the classroom? This research project was limited to elementary schools in two loc ales. The town school (TSE) served grades PreK 4; Faith and Natalie both taught the oldest students in the school who were fourth graders. The rural school (REA) served grades K 6; Star taught a Grades 5 and 6 udents. As Table 10 demonstrates, both schools had a racial/ethnic mix of predominantly Hispanic and White students. Almost half of students qualified for free and reduced lunches, which indicates a moderate ly high level of poverty. At both schools, the t eachers were implementing one to one device initiatives. Faith and Natalie had shared computer carts for grade level use in past years and were in their first year of having class sets of devices for their rooms. Star had been teaching with one to one iPad s for four years. During this study, the initiative at REA was transitioning from student iPads to Chromebooks. 4 technology knowledge, skills, aptitude, beliefs, and attitudes. Repertoires are contextualized by experiences, availability of tools, t ransactions in social groups, and other environmental, emotional, and social factors.

PAGE 276

263 The overall inquiry of the first research question was how digital devices were used in the elementary classrooms. The previous chapters have d escribed digital technologies in use and on one level, do answer the research question. But information can get lost in descriptive prose. Table 1 1 summarizes the digital tools available and in use across the three classrooms. The subsequent discussion di stills the information from the previous two chapters and Table 1 1 to identify the primary uses of digital devices in the classrooms. Not all classroom digital devices are used to the same extent by teachers and students. Nor will teachers and students ass ign the same significance to devices they do use. Identifying what counts for teachers and students was explored largely through repertory grid and card sort activities and interviews with teachers and students Through analysis of teacher and student inte rviews and classroom observations, I considered the influence of contextualized digital repertoires on digital device use in classroom s How Digital Technologies Were Used Classroom equipment resources. All three teachers valued the MacBook teacher computers issued by their districts. T hey carried their laptops to and from school daily and did not need home computers because of the district computers. The teachers primarily used the ir laptops for school b usiness, although Natalie conducted personal business on her laptop at home. The districts provided foundational classroom set ups of teacher laptop, document camera, and mounted projector. I call the foundational set up an instructional triangle In my experience, most teachers use the three interconnected devices regularly in instruction. Faith and Natalie certainly toggled between the document camera and laptop daily and with ease. Star nting has become less essential than it used to be, and in the two schools teachers shared printers across grade levels.

PAGE 277

264 Table 11 Digital Tools in the Classrooms Device Faith Natalie Star Teacher computer MacBook MacBook MacBook Student computers Chromebooks, 1:1 iPads, 1:1 Chromebooks, 1:1 Teacher cell phone Daily as timer for spelling Occasional for photos of student work Once for photo; once for student behavior tracking Classroom set ups Projector Daily Daily Daily Document camera Daily Daily Rarely Microphone(s) and Speakers Often Daily Interactive whiteboard Present, not used Printer Rarely Occasionally Rarely Digital mini timer Daily; teacher provided Chromecast Occasionally; teacher provided Built in Computer Features Accessed by Students Chromebook camera Two assignments iPad video Two students Chromebook voice searches Many students File search feature (Find) One student Subscriptions or Paid Apps Learning Ally (books) District provided Newsela (nonfiction articles) District provided BrainPOP District provided Grade level Math Games Teacher provided IXL subscription (math) Teacher provided Curriculum Assessment District provided Free Applications Google Classroom Daily Google Documents Daily Occasional Pandora Daily Daily Google search engine Occasional Often Google Slides Two assignments Verso Two assignments One assignment Kahoot One assessment Typing Club app Daily (~ two months) YouTube (teacher use) For Ignite presentations For movie clip and motivational video For Bill Nye science clip and motivational video YouTube (student use) One group, one project Poetry for Kids website One day, three classes Lightbot coding Enrichment time Advanced Hardware Robotic kits Enrichment time Student Free Time ABCya Indoor recess Cool Math Indoor recess YouTube Indoor recess Sample Math Games Daily (one semester) and enrichment time

PAGE 278

265 Star had additional district provided equipment. She had the capacity to turn the whiteboard attached to the projector into an interactive surface. Star had taken training on how to er Digital Skills in Chapter V, because Star did not understand how the interactive board could enhance her provided. The wireless microphone sat on a base that included a mixer and speakers were mounted in the ceiling. Star was adept at turning the sound on and off based on whether she was working with the whole class or a subset of students. Natalie also had a sound system in her room, but hers was an inexpensive box speaker use it when students were explaining their math problem solving processes than for other situations. Students spoke with the aid of the handheld microphone, and N atalie wore the lavalier to repeat responses or questions from other students. Teacher salaries in the state ranked one of the lowest in the nation when adjusted for cost of living (Bernardo, 2017) so teacher purchase s of classroom equipment represented sacrificial investment s for students. On average, teachers in the state spen t more than $650 out of pocket for their classrooms in 2016 2017 (State Education Association, 2018 5 ) their phones to school and accessed apps for students. Star used her phone once to take a picture of an Express Build for a student and once to tra through the projector so the class could discuss the math processes. Faith used her phone every 5 The name of the document has been anonymized to protect the identity of participants and locales.

PAGE 279

266 day as one of two timers in her classes. She had a digital mini timer she had bought, which students borrowed for timing activities at their desks. She preferred to lay her phone onto the document camera to time events in class. Daily she timed spelling practice, and occasi onally she used the timer for assessments. Districts also provided student devices as classroom resources. At TSE, fourth graders ired Chromebooks. Students surrendered the devices at the end of the day for recharging; neither school had a device lending program for students. hromebooks or iPads, which are essentially internet devices, created challenges. For Faith, using Chromebooks meant students could no longer show their presentations through the mounted projector. She solved the problem by investing her own money in a Chro mecast device. experiences. For instance, the MacBooks had ad blocking, but students did not. So, in te, they had banner ads across the tops and sides of their screens, which Faith did not. At least two students got distracted by the weekend, music album covers came up on their screens and music played automatically each Because Fai th and Natalie owned Chromebooks and iPads at home, they were comfortable helping students problem solve issues on student devices. Star did not own either

PAGE 280

267 Because Star also had little expertise with or understanding of digital devices, she ceded all problem solving to students and a colleague. Classroom application resources. Teachers had access to additional resources for instruction: built in device features, sub scription tools, and applications. Built in features. Chromebooks and iPads sometimes have built in features students can access while doing their work. For instance, Chromebooks may or may not have built in Chromebooks had f ront facing cameras. Star had her students take pictures of Express Builds for two assignments. or back facing cameras for stills and video borrowed the iPads to make videos. Chromebooks supported voice students leveraged for conducting research, finding word definitions, and entertaining themselves with images. Subs criptions. Many online applications for providing curriculum related resources require subscriptions, and districts sometimes purchase access. Star worked for a large district and had at least three district provided subscriptions from which she could sele ct materials: BrainPOP for curriculum videos, Newsela for nonfiction articles, and Learning Ally for online, voice print matched audiobooks for eligible students. Star made the most use of Newsela for reading and writing units. BrainPOP videos were used fo r science content. Eligible students accessed Learning Ally for their own independent reading without consulting Star.

PAGE 281

268 Faith had no district provided subscriptions while Natalie had access to online assessments as part of the new math curriculum. Additio nally, Natalie paid for two subscriptions for math applications. One site was IXL Math ($250) which gave students home and school access to math lessons and assessments. The other was for grade level math applications related to the new math curriculum p rice unknown, and geared for iPads. District provided subscriptions were generally online versions of curriculum consumables, designed for students to take in information or complete assessments. The subscription based products represented large collect ions of information or curriculum matched exercises and assessments. Districts did not provide subscriptions to open ended, elementary student appropriate, creativity tools. Online applications. ray of productivity tools. G Suite for Education ( edu.google.com/k 12 solutions/g suite/ ) is a free suite of productivity tools for schools offered by Google. G Suite has become a popular solut ion for districts that cannot afford full computers, productivity software, and high quality security. G Suite includes Classroom (a learning platform), Docs (word processing), Sheets (spreadsheets), Slides (presentation software), Forms (for surveys and a ssessments), Gmail (email), Calendar, Hangouts (video conferencing), and Drive (storage). As part of G Suites for Education, Google offers an advertisement free environment and part of its agreement indicates Google does not collect or use student or teach er information in the Suite for advertising purposes However, if or when the school based accounts are converted to private accounts, as when student graduate, Google has access to what had once been private information Faith and Natalie used the Googl e Docs tool for word processing. Faith also had her students work on Slides. Although the students all had email accounts, I was unaware of them

PAGE 282

269 ever using email. In past years, similar to Faith and Natalie in the research study year, Star had asked studen ts to share their Google Docs with her. Sharing meant Star received an email for d by all the emails and the need to sort through them to find student work versus district or school messages. In 2016 2017, Star was pleased to add Classroom as a repository for student work. Although students still used Docs for word processing, when th ey submitted through Classroom, the management of tasks w as simplified because email was no longer involved. In the Classroom dashboard, she could see instantly who had submitted the document and whose work was still missing. She could also access each doc ument from the central dashboard. Aside from the G Suite, teachers and students drew from only a few free sites on the web. Suite. Faith and Natalie both u sed Kahoot (https://kahoot.it/) for formative assessment games and Verso Learning ( versolearning.com/ two online tools at a summer conference. Star had a t Chromebooks so her students could improve their typing skills. Faith had students follow along on the Poetry for Kids ( poetry4kids.com/ ) website for a lesson on free verse, and both Faith and Natalie drew their transition music from Pandora ( pandora.com/ ). All three teachers found video clips on YouTube ( youtube.com/ ) on rare occasions for either instructional or motivational purposes. Faith also had a student group who, of their own volition, made a video on an iPad and uploaded it to YouTube in order to embed it in a sl ideshow.

PAGE 283

270 During enrichment time, two students assigned to Natalie used the Lightbot app ( lightbot.com/ ) on iPads for practicing coding. About ten boys who performed at grade level also had opportunities to build robots and program them. Student free time. Classroom observations included times when students were not working on academic content. Because teachers platooned within their grade levels, passing time between classes was fluid and always included some free time Also, at TSE, students had indoor recess on particularly cold or inclement days. most students used Chromebooks during their free time. Some students accessed games though ABCya ( abcya.com/ ) and Cool Math Games ( coolmath games.com/ ), two game aggregator sites they had learned about through the technology lab. Other classroom during transitions, students practiced math through sample math games Natalie had downloaded to the iPads. online applications. During Connection Time, they were not permitted to use the Chromebooks except to respond to writing prompts. During study halls, students were expected to complete missing assignments or read independently. Some reading tools were dig ital. A couple of students qualified for the Learning Ally reading website; one student borrowed a play away audio book from a library; and students used thei r Chromebooks only for assignments. Summary of digital tool use. The digital tools used in the classrooms were limited in scope. Generally each student and teacher had a computer or internet device. Subscriptions available to teachers were instructional a nd not open ended creativity tools. Students and

PAGE 284

271 also had extensive exposure to Newsela for nonfiction reading. Faith and Natalie planned occasional activities in two online tools, Verso and Kahoot, to bring variety to the instructional day. Teachers controlled the classroom digital activities tightly. What Counts in the Classroom Teachers and students had different ideas about what digital tools count in the c lassroom. Teachers depended on the projector, laptop, and G Suite for Education. For Faith and Natalie, the document camera had just as much importance, while Star employed the sound system daily. Other tools appeared to play less significant roles. Stud ents seemed unaware of the document camera, projector, or sound system as digital tools. The tools may have been classified as classroom furniture. Based on interviews with students, they valued the Chromebooks and iPads because the devices made their live s easier. With digital files, they did not have to track papers. Typing text and using the iPad touch screen were pleasant alternatives to handwriting. For students, the Chromebooks and iPads were the only devices they were permitted to use on their own, s o these were the only digital tools in the classroom that counted. Contextualized Digital Repertoires and Classroom Instruction Based on my own experiences as a technology teacher in an elementary school, I had tal devices outside school to be visible in the classroom interactions. For instance, students I taught had often told me about visiting a website on their own at home or getting a new educational program for their computers. I had heard about the computer based games they were playing, the photographs they had taken, or other online experiences.

PAGE 285

272 During my observations, I saw isolated incidences of students referring to home ome computer, a statement that puzzled classmates who did not know what a computer virus was. A student with significant home access to devices showed me his new personal Chromebook was scratched and dented because he had fallen asleep with it on his lap a nd the Chromebook fell off the bed. Another student mentioned a video of him singing karaoke had been uploaded to Facebook by his aunt. A student showed off his Gizmo Pal device, although he seemed uncertain about its capacity and purpose. Three students i on her credenza. Two students at REA had phones out and visible for short periods, one in a class meeting and another on the playground. I also saw interactions among teachers about home experiences with digital tools. Mostly the teachers were showing videos or pictures they had taken of events. Faith had a video of a bear on her driveway and a hawk on the deck. Star showed pictures from a birthday party. Most knowledge about home practices came through interviews. Faith and Natalie had a wealth of digital tools at home and used them regularly. Star depended primarily on her phone outside of school. All three teachers carted their MacBooks to and from school and did school tasks at home. All the teachers found teaching resources on the internet while working at home. The most obvious crossover of technical knowledge from home to school I knew about Chromebooks to the pr ojector. Faith was aware of the Chromecast device because the family used one at home to stream videos. Natalie mused about whether she could incorporate Alexa, Tiles, or a game system into her classroom, but she did not actually bring devices to school.

PAGE 286

273 Students helped one another with functions on their school devices, but it was never clear whether their knowledge had been gained at home or from previous experiences at school. For instance, when the student gave a keyboard shortcut for righting an upsi de down screen, the knowledge could have been from an earlier experience in the year or from a discovery at home. keystroke combination that enabled students to recov er their most recently closed Tab seemed school practice of hiding and recovering unauthorized webpages. limited access to devices outside of schoo l. At TSE only one interviewed student had home internet access although five of the six students had access to device s usually game system s at home. At TSE, one of the five students, the one who lived in affordable housing, had no internet access or fu nctioning devices he was permitted to use at home. O f the eleven students interviewed in total, all but two indicated their introductions to computing devices happened in the early elementary school years at school The evidence suggests that by the end of the technology is primarily school based. Even when students have devices and internet service at home, they may not have school peers with whom to share their newl y developed skills. Instruction in the classrooms I observed, then, was controlled by teachers and reflected their knowledge of and comfort with the digital devices in their classrooms. Allowable student t in disallowed practices resulted in suspension of computer privileges. Students had little to no visible influence on how the digital devices were used.

PAGE 287

274 In the few instances when students controlled the digital practices, such as managing the music in N who had background knowledge to complete the tasks independently. These students were either part of the gifted and talented classes or in STEM enrichment classes. Clas repertoires and school One possible outcome, then, is the students in moderately impoverished town and rural schools lack digital experiences by the end of elementary school. Research Question 2: Affordances RQ2: How do the affordances of digital technology tools influence classroom experiences with digital technology? Gibson (1986) invented the term affordance to des cribe a relationship between an actor and an object from the perspective of what the actor needs. Affordances are what an object is shelter from rain. Afford ances provide positive opportunities and negative constraints. A tree affords broad protection on all sides (opportunity) but limits the actor to one location (constraint) An umbrella affords mobility, but coverage is constrained to a narrow circle. The sheltering functions of the tree or umbrella do not change, but the opportunities and constraints change based on the needs of the individual. Conole and Dyke (2004) created a ten item taxonomy of affordances of technologies in e lear ning. The taxonomy attempted to capture the benefits and potential drawbacks of technologies for teaching and learning. While the taxonomy named categories of affordances I saw in classrooms, such as immediacy, accessibility, and speed of change, the accom panying

PAGE 288

275 descriptions of the categories did not fit my perceptions. The taxonomy did not fit my study as an analysis tool. In more recent writings, the concept of affordances has been used narrowly to apply only to the opportunities of objects and has be en paired with constraints. For instance, Mishra and Koehler (2006) discu ssed the complexity of integrating technology into instruction because of the interplay of pedagogy, content, and technology. The researchers particularly emphasized the necessity for teachers to know the affordances and constraints of digital tools. Unl ike Mishra and Koehler (2006) I use affordance as a broad term encompass ing opportunities and constraints inherent in technologies. Nor did I try to assign affordances to specific technology tools. The use of technology in classrooms provides affordances in teaching and learning that are not necessarily specific to tools or sp ecific to either teaching or learning, but become evident in the complex environment of a classroom with digital tools. Affordances can be understood as the potential of a device in relationship to the user. Opportunities are the benefits of affordances; constraints are the limitations (Hammond, 2010) Teachers and students perceive affordances of technology use in their classrooms differently. students (Downes, 2002) Teacher Perceived Affordances During interviews, both the target teachers and their grade level colleagues were asked to reflect on their classroom experiences and discuss opportunities and constraints presented when teaching with digital tools. Teachers h ad little difficulty listing affordances. Their perceptions instruction.

PAGE 289

276 Teacher perceived opportunities. Teachers bear ultimate responsibility for how they implement school or district based initiatives, such as the one to one computing device initiatives at both TSE and REA. While teaching, teachers compare the intended outcomes of a lesson with the in process experience. Where technology based experiences and instr uctionally driven intentions align positively, teachers perceive opportunities in the use of technology. Administrative opportunities. The use of technology for administrative tasks benefits teachers significantly. With technology, routine administrative t asks like reporting attendance, entering grades, filing reports, collecting assignments, and managing data become less onerous and time consuming. At both schools, teachers used online district forms for administrative tasks such as requesting student supp ort services and submitting credits for pay raises. The accountability movement has made teachers aware of the importance of data driven instruction. Star and her colleagues mentioned the ease of managing data with technology. One colleague s sa id, The collection of data is probably 150 times easier than when I first started. So, for example, if I compared this time now to when I was first started to teach when they were coming out with [state assessments], you got your data and you would analyze the data and what it would look like is a piece of paper and you would highlight things or do tally marks and just write stuff. Then you'd go back and kind of try to find trends and it took a really long time and people hated it. I remember most of my pee rs hated analyzing data and it would take hours, just take hours. Then if you wanted to give a practice assessment, it was like made an assessment and we had the settings on it that it created [ the data] automatically, we could compare that. You could copy and paste and compare data and do a projection and it takes a quarter or less than it used to. Twice as much data in one fourth the time. Another area where technology has eased administrativ e tasks is communication. All three teachers used texts and emails to communicate with colleagues, administrators, and parents. Natalie used Facebook as a communications tool with TSE families as well. Faith sent and received texts about tournaments for th e teams she coached. Faith said texts were more

PAGE 290

277 efficient and less intrusive than phone calls. Star sent a monthly email to keep families aware of the upcoming events. Although Star thought some students hung on to every email because they did not understa nd how to delete them, Elena suggested another reason: Every month [the teacher] sends out updates about what's going on which I like to keep so I know what's happening. Instructional opportunities. Teachers believed technology provided the opportunity t o as an outcome of using technology. Star did not use the word engagement but indicated students often had difficulty dis engaging from the Chromebooks to attend to other tasks like announcements or class discussions. Since students were permitted to use the Chromebooks only for class work, this suggests she thought digital work kept them engrossed. Faith and Natalie also believed online tools, such as Verso and Kahoot, offered variety from everyday tasks. These tools were rarely tapped and so remained novel for the students in comparison to Google documents, which were used almost daily in reading and writing classes. The use of G Suite tools provided instructio nal opportunities for the teachers. Star commented Google Classroom simplified her instruction because she could create assignment documents that included all the instructions; students could copy the documents, complete the work, and submit the assignment s; and Star could see at a glance on her dashboard wh ich students had and had not submitted the assignments. With the instructions embedded in the assignment documents, Star did not need to repeat directions, write the directions on the whiteboard, or keep them projected on the screen while students worked. Also, students no Star explained the benefit:

PAGE 291

278 Less time explaining over and over again what the assignment is because you know when you write on the board, you try to be detailed but you can't write every single thing. Whereas in Classroom, you can be very specific. I can create the doc with how I wanted Reciprocal teaching was a cut down on the huge chunk of time that's wasted. Faith and Natalie used Google documents for reading and writing classes. Although submissi ons and grading were more complex in Google documents than they would be in Google Classroom, the teachers were comfortable with the Google documents process. Implementing oogle Teachers mentioned the ease of giving feedback. Natalie indicated in Google documents, she could give feedback more efficiently than moving from child to child in the classroom: Because I can sit on Google do cs and have them do their tests like I have them do in [reading] and still give them feedback and give them notes and comments and stuff where -and I can do that for the whole class sitting in front of my computer -versus going around to each of the ki ds and just giving one on one attention at once. Faith took advantage of the affordance of device mobility. Students carried their Chromebooks to than Faith ci rculating to find which students were ready for feedback. Like Star, Faith saw the use of G Suite as an instructional time saver: When you don't have to spend ten minutes trying to find the paper, and so on, I think it can allow you to move at a faster pace. And allows you to do more instructing rather than gathering of papers and information. Trying to get the paper out to everyone or collecting from everybody. That's kind of eliminated gathering and organizing papers. I just think then you can put it into actual teaching in the class. Yeah, you're saving time there, but even on my end, I think it allows more time for preparation of lessons or reading what they turned in. It gives you more time to read what they've turned in or finding resources to use to teach with.

PAGE 292

279 Natalie found instructional opportunity by using technology in math classes to share the whiteboard. Students could explain their thinking proc Student involvement opportunities. The use of digital devices provided opportunities for students to be involved in equipment management, classroom tasks, skill support, and instructional experiences in the classroom In all three classrooms, students took responsibility for the housekeeping management of the Chromebooks and iPads. Teachers rarely were involved in distributing or collecting devices. he class, Natalie transition music when Natalie was busy, and enter attendance and lunch count information at the beginning of the day. Students help ed one another wit students in enrichment class had opportunities to assist one another in learning technology skills. Faith rare ly took advantage of the opportunity to involv e students in problem solving. Instructionally, students had opportunities to be involved as well. On a simple level, students could access math games and IXL math activities to improve their own expertise. St ir own choosing. Summary of opportunities. Teachers found opportunities in the implementation of one to one technology devices in their classrooms. Rarely did a day or class block pass when

PAGE 293

280 students were not using technology devices as part of the classr oom activities. The most common opportunity teachers perceived was the efficiency of using G Suite for managing student work. Teacher perceived c onstraints Every affordance contains constraints as well as opportunities. REA Principal Lombard identified c onstraints as challenges: The challenges with technology, they are always there who manages the technology, something else, you know. Do iPads just become a play toys? Beca use they are not play toys, but I do have to get the tools --so why not get the tools in their hands to allow them to demonstrate understanding that looks a little different from pencil and paper all of the time. Again, what is the purpose? again going one to one there comes a lot of challenges with that as to maintenance, focused person here, how do you do that? One key to effective use of a tool is to understand and plan for the constraints. On a very fragility may cause a traveler to opt for a taxi rather than a walk. In a classroom, teachers need to remain aware of constraints as they plan instruction. Not every tool will accomplish the same tasks. Classroom management of equipment. Classroom managem ent refers to the process of providing meaningful content using effective teaching strategies within an orderly environment (Allen, 2010) The challenges of classroom management are considered one of the most difficult aspects of teaching (Oliver & Reschly, 2007) Teachers mentioned a constraint for using technology is the management of equipment. been our bi manage the distribution, collection, and charging of devices, other management issues were less easily solved. Unreliable or fragile technology tools can interrupt the flow of i nstruction. Faith talked about how technical problems could disrupt instruction:

PAGE 294

281 The worst day is when you have the whole thing planned and the internet's down or it isn't working, or you're trying to flip back and forth between the screens and it's not go ing. And you think I've been flipping these screens all day and now it's not working. What button did I forget to push in the right order? It's always a challenge, but that could happen. I view that as it could happen with anything. ssroom was equidistant from the wireless access points in the fourth grade hallway and the middle school, her MacBook sometimes connected with the middle school server. Natalie was not always aware of the failed wireless connection until she could not acce ss the online curriculum documents during class. Having to reconnect to the wireless access point in the middle of instruction disrupted her lessons, as she explained: Sometimes the internet doesn't come on, like today I wasn't able to get onto the math curriculum so I try to think about things. I like to use Doceri [an application that projects directly from an iPad to a projector] but I can't always connect because som etimes I get internet from the other buildings and sometimes it kicks me off. dongle for connecting to the projector, the battery, the power cord, and the motherboar d Each repair meant she was without her computer for a while, sometimes as much as two days. which she solved by turning it off and on until the buzz subsided. One day t he projector failed to come on at all. Faith waited half a day to have the projector replaced by a district technician. running in the background, draining the battery be iPads did not fully charge overnight, which left students unable to use them. Additionally, students in all three classrooms had no means for blocking advertisements, such as banner ads, on their devices. Thi s was particularly problematic with Chromebooks, which were always online. Because student s had their own Chromebook account s blocking the ads would have required giving students administrative rights to install add ons. In the previous

PAGE 295

282 year, students had been given administrative rights and downloaded inappropriate backgrounds, apps, and add ons. The district decided to maintain tighter control on student devices. 2016 students were a ffected by a new, and unwanted, service provided by Apple. The service had two features: a music clip from the album accompanied by a pop up of an album cover. Natalie learned about the music clips first because some iPads had the volume turned up and the music started when writing the reading response, but then it became obvious the new feature had been installed during the update. Students did not have admi nistrative rights to disable the feature. A student brought the album cover pop up to my attention when he asked me how he inappropriately, and he was emba rrassed by the picture (see Figure 2 5 ). Figure 2 5 made a fourth grader uncomfortable TSE He asked me to remove it. The progress bar beneath the picture shows a music clip was also playing, but the studen

PAGE 296

283 Natalie and I realized the album covers and music clips were related, and both were inappropriate for school iP ads. Although Natalie and I both talked to district IT employees about the issue, the problem persisted when I returned a month later. Natalie indicated the district had been unable to resolve the issue. Teachers also faced constraints in managing online tools. Maintaining class rosters required teachers to think about and make adjustments for online services. For instance, in Classroom, Star created class rosters for every block of students and every content area she taught. When students enrolled in the school, Star had to ensure their names appeared in the right rosters for Classroom so students could access assignments. Students changing to a different homeroom group were less common, and Star struggled to remember how to change the rosters in the righ ons for online services, not all services interfaced with Google products. Because use of the non Google products was limited, students did not always reme mber their additional passwords. In Verso, teachers had to remember to adjust the allowable word count for responses to accommodate students who wrote voluminous responses. Classroom management of students Although teachers believed an opportunity of using technology with students was greater engagement, they also recognized the constraints posed by unengaged students. Student caused constraints to engagement included lack of technical skills, evidence of di Deficiencies in technical skills Students could not be faulted for deficient technical skills. Based on interviews of eleven students over both schools, it could be inferred students lacke d digital tools at home, where skills might have been developed through experimental play

PAGE 297

284 (Hollingworth et al., 2011) In school, teachers rarely scaffolded technology skills, perhaps beca use they did not recognize the need. Faith seemed to believe regular use provided sufficient training in technical skills: Teachingwise, before kids were on devices so much, we'd have to plan the skills they ters in regular classroom, we don't need to do as much direct instruction on the tech skills that kids will need. At TSE where students attended technology lab for specials, lessons covered digital safety, keyboarding, and playing games. At REA, students did not have formal technology abilities to complete classroom assignments. Keyboarding is a developing skill in elementary schools where students are also learnin g handwriting skills and developing hand eye coordination (Stevenson & Just, 2014) Even when students have similar amounts of training in keyboarding, some students progress faster than othe rs (Weintraub, G ilmour Grill, & Weiss, 2010) At TSE, all students had some typing keyboarding daily for two months although many students used a hunt and peck system even on the practi ce site and no one was held accountable for completing the lessons. Students in the other three REA homerooms did not practice keyboarding. typing proficiency affected the length of time it took for students to complete assignm ents. Also, the need to concentrate on finding letters on a keyboard reduced the amount of cognition students had for composing sentences (Barkaoui, 2014; Torkildsen, Morken, Helland, & Helland, 2016) so less proficient typists likely produced less

PAGE 298

285 typed dictated text for students with slow typing skills. These students were invariably working on past due as signments. When individual students lacked technical skills, whether the skills were solving technical glitches, logging on, typing web addresses, or downloading and saving files, their problems often disrupted or delayed instruction. Lag time between wh en a teacher announced a technology based activity and when students were finally ready often ran as long as five or ten minutes. Faith commented on disruptions to teaching: There are times there are kids who can't get on. You're trying to teach the lesson and you hear, my password isn't working today. An opportunity teachers had discussed was the use of digital devices as an instructional time saver. Students no longer took ten minutes to find a misplaced worksheet or had to start over. But time saving happen ed only when students ha d the technical organization skills to find about digital housekeeping: once they do it, they get a little it will remove it from me too. Some of the time saving teachers mentioned as an opportunity may have been forfeited when students lacked the technical organization skills to manage their digital files. Distractions. Student distraction also contribute d to lag time in instruction. For instance, students found it difficult to set aside computers to attend to instruction. When teachers prompted students to set their devices in the center of the table or close the lids, compliance was slow. Often, the stud ents who complied most reluctantly also missed the instructions about what they were to do next, which delayed the class even longer.

PAGE 299

286 showed them the Newsela articl e they would be reading and annotating. Students had their Chromebooks open, as Star had instructed. One student was using his finger to swipe left and right across the screen. The finger action caused the screen to move slightly to the left or right and s nap back. A student next to him noticed and began doing the same thing. Star asked slowly lowered his screen and continued swiping as he lowered it. He slumped in his seat so he could watch what happened while Star continued instruction. Teachers were not always aware of student distractions. For instance, when Faith used the Poetry for Kids site, her students saw banner and sidebar advertisements that did not appe ar At least two students clicked on ads to explore other sites. Because Faith did not know advertisements were showing, she missed an opportunity to teach students how to manage sites with advertisements. This was not a lesson they learned in the computer lab curriculum either classrooms as well Many students kept their audio muted, but those who did not were always at risk f or distracting the class with su dden audio bursts. With the iPads, those distractions happened as a result of the update that installed auto hyperlink in a teacher provided document and accidentally started a video. Another stu dent clicked on the iCivics Do I Have a Right game and triggered the background music. Even when Star assigned BrainPOP videos and students were expected to listen, the cacophony of the same video started at different times was distracting. Teachers had a few headphone sets, but not enough for every student At TSE, the teachers shared a case of headphones. At REA, Star had

PAGE 300

287 fewer headsets than she had students. Her students often decreased the volume of the video and leaned close to the screen to hear. Sub version and misuse. A constraint to technology use in the classroom is when students do not use the technology in the way s the teacher s intend. This is not always malicious, but it For instanc e, students can subvert the intent of the digital activity to meet their own purposes although teachers rarely showed awareness of how students adapted the digital tools for their own purposes. Natalie was invested in having students use math games on iP ads to practice math skills. However, students were far more interested in subverting the math purpose to their own game purposes. They raced through the easiest levels to get to the reward games or deliberately provided incorrect answers to trigger respon ses that amused them. With the game of Math Slide, students did not attempt to solve problems but battled with peers to win the most points. activated image searches for topics they thought would return amusing or shocking pictures. The searches became a distraction from doing their research work and a type of subversion from research to entertainment. Newsela, which pleased St ar. What I observed, though, was students either staring into space with Newsela open on the computer or students scrolling through articles looking for catchy bu t they were meeting their own non reading purposes. slideshows inevitably got caught up with changing fonts, font colors, and backgrounds even

PAGE 301

288 though they had not completed th e research on their topics. Occasionally, a pair of students In both schools, a small number of students willfully misused the digital devices. These students were outliers who may have been stru ggling with other issues. technology: When kids mess up, they do have a little bit of a grace period. We've had a little bit of inappropriate searches and we have a tight security so if they do search for something, they won't get the bad stuff. But it's bad enough, if you know what I mean. When they bring technology into our school, it's not as protected as well as we would like so we ask them not to bring other devices, o utside devices, because we can't control that and it's part of our safety. Faith commented: The challenge obviously is they have their own [devices], so some don't choose to do what they are supposed to do which is a big challenge which we have been tryin g to deal with. I think some of them are learning their lessons. One student at TSE had his computer privileges revoked for several weeks at a time at classroom, t Verso. He apparently did not realize Natalie could identify the commenter, because the posts looked anonymous on the screen. Two students regularly resisted setting the iPads as ide when Natalie indicated math was beginning. This behavior gradually improved as the year progressed. A student at REA had several incidents where his anger over being told to set his Chromebook aside resulted in destruction of classrooms and digital eq uipment. Although these of technology closely as part of a behavior plan. The student earned computer time through compliant behavior and lost access to devices when he resisted. Consistent and non emotional

PAGE 302

289 monitoring reaped rewards by the fourth quarter when the student could balance his desire for digital time with the need for academic time. Chromebook account. Once the tumult subsided, Star was able to reinstate the account and redirected the student who had created the problem. I was not present to learn whether the student also lost technology privileges. Complexity. The p roliferation of digital devices, online tools, and downloadable apps has increased the complexity of digital devices in the classroom. Natalie, who headed the technology Additionally, as Mishra and Koehler (2006) pointed out, knowing technology tools is not enough. Teachers must also know how to effectively blend pedagogy, content, and technology in instruction. The teachers discussed their lack of pr eparedness to use technology effectively in teaching. All three teachers mentioned their need for someone to find appropriate tools for them and then teach them how to use the tools effectively in teaching. Although Faith and Natalie at least had district support they could tap, Star leaned on her teammates, whose knowledge of agreed that teachers needed better training: others we know are need coaching about different apps, different p we really using [devices] as tools to enhance learning? Star struggled to adjust from using iPads, on which she had had some in service training, to Chromebooks, for which she had no training or hands on experience. Apps she had loved on

PAGE 303

290 the iPad, for making videos, recording music, and creating comics, were not available on the Chromebooks. Since Star did not have access to a Chromebook for her own exploration, she was unlikely to develop proficiency with Chromebook capabilities or to understand how Chromebooks differed from her MacBook. The list of teacher perceived affordances should not be considered exhaustive. Teachers may have highlighted only the items foremost on their minds and passed over seemingly minor items. Nor should the opportunities and constraints be attributed only to the presence of technology in the classroom. Some items teachers mentioned, the classroom, with or without technology. Other items, such as online feedback files happen only when technology is present. Student Perceived Affordances Students made few comments about the affordances of technology in the classroom. While teachers have a breadth of experience with many students using technology, elementary students, even those in grades 4 6, have digital experience with only a few teachers. Technology nts to digital experiences and access to tools. Even so, students did express opinions about digital tool use. The information in this section of Student perceived o pportunities. Students generally liked having digital devices in their classrooms. Some had transferred from schools with far less availability of digital devices, so they had comparative data. Only one student interviewed transferred from a school with a stronger technology program.

PAGE 304

291 Access opportunities. For students in moderately high poverty schools such as TSE and REA gaining access to technology provides opportunities missing in their home lives. In both schools, the continuum of digital tools and in ternet access ranged from no access to multiple devices and home wireless systems. Most students talked about restricted opportunities to use devices at home. At school, they took pride in the availability of digital tools. In fact, fourth grader Rob comme nted, Most kids at schools don't really have any technology. And they said that at this school every single kid in this school could use a technology device. Students did not necessarily see the limited availability of devices at home as a problem. Eleme ntary students still enjoy playing outdoors. The desire to play outdoors rather than sit in front of a screen indoors was a common theme among children. When students did have tools at home, parents generally placed tight restrictions on how much daily scr een time they could have. Learning efficiency opportunities. Several students found keyboarding or touch screens more appealing than writing by hand. Typed text was more readable than their handwriting as well. Students also appreciated built in tools such as spell check, dictionaries, and thesauri. Being able to ch ange font sizes and colors on text or slides, submit assignments online, and take pictures or videos with their devices was also seen as an opportunity of using technology. At REA, students took advantage of the speech recognition capability of the Chrom ebooks. For students who struggled with spelling and typing, the use of voice commands to trigger an online search facilitated faster and more accurate searches than typed keywords. Entertainment opportunities. Any opportunities to be entertained with tech nology passed up a chance to access game sites. Students also talked about the fun of competing in

PAGE 305

292 Kahoot assessments, watching occasional videos, and playing educ Do I Have a Right? Student perceived constraints. Elementary students lack the developmental capacity to conceive of school as different from what they currently experience (Pia g et as discussed in McLeod, 2015) In interviews, students generally indicated how they used digital devices in school was acceptable to them They rarely mentioned constraints, although I observed constraints to school experiences with technology. Unevenness of opportunities. unities to gain technical skills, explore new digital tools, and create meaningful technology based products depended on their academic levels. In technology lab, all students practiced keyboarding, had lessons on digital safety, and played games. Those ex periences were afforded to all fourth graders. Students who were eligible for gifted and talented services also worked with an instructional technology specialist in a social media class. As part of the class, they made videos and slideshows to advertise s chool events and learned coding. This was a mixed gender group. Students whose reading was on grade level attended enrichment classes for thirty minutes a day during intervention time. Based on my observations, boys who qualified for enrichment explored ro botics in the STEM lab with Natalie. Girls wrote for publication with Faith. The remaining students attended thirty minute intervention classes. Depending on the handwriting. These students missed out on the more advanced technology projects. These students were also more likely to have fewer home experiences with technology. At REA, students had not attended technology classes for at least two years, so students learned all their technical skills in their classrooms or outside of school. The students who had

PAGE 306

293 the richest technology experiences in school were those who already had developed advanced technology skills outside of school. These students gathered in th e classroom of the teacher who had the most interest in technology to work together on advanced projects for their own pleasure. When students worked in groups on the summative science projects, these students collaborated on technology based projects and spent time in the technology rich classroom. Restrictive management of devices. Students had little choice about how they showed their content mastery, how they managed their devices, and when and how they used technology. The predominant use of devices was for pencil and paper work worksheets, essays, and lab reports. Occasionally, students were directed to take a photo or design a slideshow, but such activities were highly prescribed by the tea chers. At TSE, students had some choice about math games and computer based activities during indoor recess. At REA all games were forbidden. In my experience in schools, playing games is allowed on a limited basis, particularly games with an educational focus. Typically, students are restricted to child friendly sites not filtered by the district, but some freedom of exploration is the norm. With daily Connection Time, teachers at REA probably could have given students half an hour of games each week or o nce a month without triggering problems. However, they may have feared any loosening of control would spur some children to push the boundaries at other times. Students had no before or after school opportunities to use the devices at either school. De vices remained at the charging stations until the school day began and were reconnected to the chargers at the end of their daily use. The most flexibility with devices was in the STEM lab after students had built their robots and could explore programming

PAGE 307

29 4 flexibility in how they used their devices. Lack of technology knowledge. natives, the students a t both schools showed major gaps in their knowledge. Gaps in technical skills have been addressed earlier in the paper. Digital citizenship and online research were two progress. At TSE students learned about protecting their identities as part of digital safety in the technology lab. Luna listed what she remembered about internet safety lessons: The good stuff you can share is no the bad stuff you do not want to share is your email, your mom's maiden name, your first and last name. And your phone number, but things you could put online is like a user name, not using your name, your favorite color, your favorite food, and I think your pet's name. Lessons on protecting y our individual identity were provided in the Common Sense Media curriculum for every grade level at TSE. Luna demonstrated the lesson had been taught often enough that she could remember the basic tenets. What seemed to be mi ssing from the curriculum were other common threats to personal safety such as phishing, computer viruses, or website spoofing (Pusey & Sadera, 2012) had lost home computer privileges because he had downloaded a virus. Another student, Ethan, indicated the computer in his bedroom where he played his favorite online game had somehow become virused. He mentioned the virus killer the family had installed was actually a virus as well, so his computer was non functional. As evidenced by these two st udents, children are vulnerable to online threats outside the filtered world of the school.

PAGE 308

295 Digital citizenship and safety had not been addressed at REA, as far as I could tell, and none of the school staff brought up the topic as an issue. Instead, the primary concern was wasted academic time and resulted in highly suspect info rmation. Students were assigned multiple research projects, and I did not observe a single lesson on how to conduct an effective search, how to scan results, or how to read a website. At REA, at least a third of students conducted their searches in images, and often did not even visit the page where the image had been located to read the text. In both schools, I did not observe a single student noting the source of any information or pictures. Not understanding how to use digital devices effectively for res earch or how to cite sources constrained students from developing key skills for future academic success. Schooling practices. insights about their responses to using digital devices in classrooms. For the most part, students refrained from telling me, someone who participated in a teacher aide role in their classroom s, about their frustrations with schooling. But sometimes a comment buried in a description I observed teachers showed little variety in how they deployed digital devices in their classrooms. Often the technology based tasks could have been completed with pencil and paper. Nightshadow onto that topic, based on how often students dawdled or got distracted as they typed in documents, other students wo uld probably agree.

PAGE 309

296 Trooper talked about not knowing the why behind assignments. He commented he had once been required to record himself counting to one hundred, but he did not understand the purpose. While I, as a teacher, could understand how having ch ildren self record their counting would provide formative assessment information, Trooper found the task meaningless I observed teachers often gave students single experiences with new skills or projects, so students were constrained from improving the ir repertoires based on the lessons they had learned during the first experience. Rebecca mentioned she had learned about coding in second grade and was unsuccessful. But she had had only t hat one experience at school so she had given up on coding. Rebecca also show, but the new IGNITE presentation assignment was not at all like the science slide shows. time only experiences in classrooms. Summary of student perceived affordances. Overall, students enjoyed the opportunity of digital access in school. They appreciated the ways techno logy made their learning more efficient and the potential for entertainment through technology use. Students identified access to advanced technology learni ng and technology knowledge deficits. Summary of Chapter In this chapter, I synthesized the data to respond to the two major research questions. In response to the first question, I explained how teachers and students used technology in their classrooms.

PAGE 310

297 ualized digital repertoires. When teachers lived technology rich lives outside school, they had more knowledge resources to draw on for school than teachers with technology limited personal lives. Almost half of s tudents lived in digital poverty at home an d depended on school experiences to enrich their digital repertoires. For the second question, I identified the affordances of technology from both the efficiency as well as student engagement opportunities to the daily use of digital devices. Constraints described by teachers were classroom management of tools and students as well as the complexity of technology use Students perceived affordance opportunities as access to devices and internet, learning restrictive control of devices, lack of technology knowledge, and school ing practices with digital devices. In the n ext chapter, I will discuss interpretations of the data, implications for educators, and recommendations for future research.

PAGE 311

298 C HAPTER VII DISCUSSION The time I spent observing and participating in three classrooms over the course of the 2016 2017 schoo l year provided valuable insights about the complexity of education. Although I prepared myself for the research by studying the research literature and could draw from decades of educator experience, I continually ran across surprising and new information The volume of space of this dissertation report. The teachers involved in this research project approached teaching every day with dedication and the intent to within school, district, state, and federal education cultures over which they had little influence. For the most part, they did not choose the technology equipment in their classrooms, nor were they consulted when districts made choices for them. They deployed the best pedagogical strategies they knew in concert with the digital tools, curriculum, and content standards placed before them. I admired their commitment and openness and their stoic acceptance of the challenges. The teachers did not complain about how little influence they had over their teaching contexts (Becker & Ravitz, 2001) but rather to identify specific kinds of schools and study the teachers within them. School characteristics I sought were in distinct locales (town and rural) with near state averages of ethnic and racial distributions (abou t 35% Hispanic and 60% non Hispanic White) and poverty as defined through the Free and Reduced lunch program (about 45%). I did

PAGE 312

299 women knew I was researching t echnology use in elementary schools before they volunteered. By chance, the pool of three teachers ranged across the continuum of technology knowledge from a teacher with little technology experience to a teacher who embraced digital tools. Age was not a factor in their technology experience: Natalie, the digital pioneer, was in her early forties; Faith, the moderate technology user, was in her mid to late forties; and Star, the least experienced user, was in her mid thirties. In this chapter, I will first discuss my understanding of what I observed, heard, and participated in. Analysis and interpretation have both been shaped by the theoretical framework of the research project and my own personal beliefs about what is important in education. Another researcher reading my descriptions may be struck by other insights. The report will then cover implications of the research for educators contributions to the field, r ecommendations for future research and study limitations Interpretation For me, eth nography was more than a method; it was also the conceptual lens that described individual funds of identity. Ethnography enabled me to pay attention to the transac ted repertoire of practices shared by each teacher and her students from the perspectives of the individuals who collectively comprised each classroom This contrasts significantly from statistical studies of classroom technology use so often reported in the literature (Atsoglou & Jimoyiannis, 2012; Franklin, 2005; Shapley et al., 2010; Shin, 2015) The use of ethnography as (W olcott, 1999, p. 73) allowed me to simultaneously gain a sense of the big picture of technology in classrooms and pay attention to the details of individual contexts.

PAGE 313

300 The ethnographic record represented in this report provides in depth information abou t how teachers and students engage with digital devices in school and at home. As a participant observer for more than 400 hours, I was present for almost 50% of the school year across two schools. I gathered mountains of ethnographic data about daily acti how teachers and students understood the role of digital tools in their school and home lives. The commitment of time was worthwh ile for me, though, because I developed rich holistic insights from the communities. Additionally, I conducted the ethnographic study in two locales often overlooked by education researchers: towns and rural communities (Arnold et al., 2005) Although the schools were similar demographically, the cultures of the schools were significantly different. Yet many of the problems t eachers faced in trying to integration technology bore similarities to teachers in other locales (Ertmer, 2005; Ertmer et al., 2012; Tondeur et al., 2008) In the theoretical framework of the research (Figure 26) I located the genesis of digital knowl edge and skills in the home. My expectation was that students, in particular, would come to school with digital repertoires that had been shaped by digital experiences at home. Based on as they participated in social groups outside the home, including school classrooms, where social group members negotiate and share social practices (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff et al., 2015) Some, but not all, transacted practices within social groups would include digital experiences. digital experiences, I assumed, may have begun at home or in school, since the inclusion of digital devices in homes and schools coincided with their childhoods.

PAGE 314

301 Figure 2 6 Theoretical framework of the research as presented in Chapter III I coined the term contextualized digital repertoire digital expertise that can be accessed within contextual settings of social groups. Individuals continually expand their repertoires as they encounter and participate in digital experiences. Yet, the circumstances (co ntexts) of any social setting require only a fraction of the repertoire to be exercised. s a dynamic digital repertoire; however, in wil l prove useful during the school day. Social groups also have repertoires of practice or social norms which include a collective contextualized digital repertoire. Each by the purposes, culture, an d activities of the group. In this research study, because student

PAGE 315

302 groupings changed for every block of instruction, each class or block became its own social group. T he contexts of regrouping influenced the collective digital repertoire in each block Stu dents did not follow the same digital practices in the same ways across classrooms. resources at home as well as school. Home access to digital devices and internet affects individual digital repertoires before they start schooling. Even though the students interviewed for the study had been born in the digital age, between 200 5 and 2007, their exposure to digital experiences seemed minimal before they started school. Of eleven students, only two mentioned home experiences before they were kindergarten age. One student remembered using Facetime with relatives as a four year old; year kindergarten and fourth grade. This does not mean they did not see and learn from adults with digital tools, but rather they did not get to handle digital tools until they reached elementary school. Parents of all interviewed students tended to have smartphones, many of which were provided by employers. The devices allowed parents to have connectivity through data plans Students indicated they were generally not Even as late as in the intermediate elementary grades, students continued to have limited access to digital tools and the int ernet. At TSE, only one of six interviewed students had internet at home. One student had no access to digital devices outside of school, while most of the others had one or two devices, predominantly game systems. The interviewed students represented a

PAGE 316

303 ra nge of socio economic levels, from students whose parents were unemployed wageworkers to students whose parents were both in professional job s. At REA, I interviewed four students from middle class, dual income homes and only one student from the affordab le housing complex. Except for that one student, the children had internet access at home and each owned several digital tools. Only one student had a game system, so home devices were primarily tablets (including iPads) and iPods One student had no home access to devices; one student was limited to one hour a day of screen time, including television; and three students expressed little interest in using digital devices at home. Two students also mentioned dislike of technology, a finding higher than curre nt research showing about 20% of adult students who grew up with digital technology since birth did not like using technology for learning or using the internet (Combes, 2009) classroom. In research about the digital divide, e been largely overlooked (Rit zhaupt, Dawson, & Barron, 2013; L. Wood & Howley, 2012) More research about the digital divide at elementary could determine at what school level and age the divide emerges (Ritzhaupt et al., 2013) L. Wood and Howley (2012) conducted a large scale survey of third grade teachers in Ohio and documented a digital divide favoring students in affluent suburban schools not only in access to devices and internet, but also in s ophistication of computer use. This dissertation study (2012) research findings. E vidence from the current study revealed an elementary school digital divide in grades 4 6 in town and rural communities. All but two of the intervi ewed students had only seen adults using technology before they began schooling, so they lacked robust digital repertoire s when they

PAGE 317

304 began schooling Then depending on which teachers they were assigned in elementary school, students began using digital to ols between Kindergarten and Grade 4 which represents a large gap across and within schools When students were introduced to technology depended on 1) whether their schools had computer labs and 2) whether their classroom teachers had an interest in usin g technology. Home use of digital tools remained limited throughout elementary school, particularly in the town school (TSE) which was located in a rural region. Additionally, the evidence from this study extends previous research about the digital divide. In the past, the digital divide has largely been researched by large scale surveys of teachers and students at the secondary level about access to and uses of digital devices (Dolan, 2016; Goh & Kale, 2015; S. H. Kim & Bagaka 2005) Perhaps that is why researchers have not talked about digital divides within schools and classrooms. The data I collected demonstrated inequity of access, sophistication of use, and technology skills within classrooms, even with one to one digi tal device programs. Students with out of school access to digital tools had more opportunity to expand their digital repertoires than students who lacked out of school access, not only at home but also during the school day. At TSE, repertoire expansion t ook the form of enrichment classes for more privileged students while their peers were in remediation classes. At REA, students who had developed advanced technology skills at home had opportunities to work together in the classroom of the teacher with a s trong passion for technology tools. In a review of literature on the digital divide, Dolan (2016) stated: Home access to the Internet varies according to a number of factors, including location (rural locations are less likely to have Internet connection), ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and citizenship status (p. 20) Both T SE and REA were located in rural areas, although REA was sandwiched between two large cities and, therefore, might have had more affordable and available internet options.

PAGE 318

305 Students at both schools who did not have internet service at home generally stated internet was too expensive for their families. The families of some TSE students also may not have had citizenship status, which may have contributed to low internet connectivity. Dolan (2016) concluded: The urban myth teachers hold that low income students do not possess ways to access the Internet appears to be a holdover from the past; rather, these students may access the Internet in ways not valued or understood by their teachers. Whether it is using a particular device (accessing the Internet through smartphones rather than laptops), the kinds of literacy practices they engage i n (gaming rather than writing essays), or using technology outside of the home at the library or a community center, it may be more about the lack of cultural understanding by administrators and teachers and their students, than the lack of a physical tool (p. 33). While urban and suburban students may have digital access in the ir communit ies the evidence of this (2016) conclusion for low income children in town and rural settings The elementary students who lived in low income homes lacked internet access and digital devices at home. They could not make up for this gap by using technology at community centers or public libraries because of transportation gaps Towns and rural communities lack ed public transportation, and the wage earner typically use d the family vehicle, if the family own ed one, for commu ting (Nelson & Hiemstra, 2008) In Smalltown, hiking to the town library would have r equire d walking three miles, at least half of which was along a busy highway with no sidewalks. Even with a bicycle, few parents would have encourage d elementary children to make the trip. The nearest library for REA students living in affordable housing w as five miles away along a four lane highway. Other REA students in low income families lived even farther from public libraries. referenced the digital divide. Although he surmised 75% of his students had digital devices at hom e an optimistic figure in my estimation he wondered about the students who lacked any home technology :

PAGE 319

306 I look at it like if somebody didn't have books at home, would I look at school as, oh, I should probably cut out the books here too, or would I think man, I really should get books into this kid's hands ? So same thing like if somebody doesn't have technology at home, the digital gap or divide, like they say, it's even a higher task for me to say I probably really need to expose them to how to use thes e tools and how to use them properly. Give them the skills that they need. Teachers at both schools had students who lacked home technology access. T he one to one initiatives in their schools were one way to address the divide. What educators may not have considered is students with technology access at home and at school maintained and even expanded their advantage through in school technology experiences One to one initiatives d id not lessen the digital divide. Digital repertoire expansion. TSE and REA students did not bring extensive personal schools how misguided it is to assume all children have extensive digital skills gleaned from home com puting experiences Children not only need access to devices to build skills, but also flexibility to explore different digital tools. Many parents place tight strictures on when, how, and which digital devices can be used, as with Max and Jade at REA. Chi ldren with no access (Rob and Max) or with access only to gaming systems (Luna, Parker, and Nightshadow) have few opportunities to discover what technology can offer. The research literature does not contain standard frameworks to identify what belongs in In 2012, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), a professional organization of educators, published student technology profiles across four grade level bands (PK 2, 3 5, 6 8, and 9 12) to highlight examples of implementing the 2007 ISTE Standards for Students (ISTE 2012) Although the ISTE student standards for technology were revised and released in 2016 (ISTE) the 2012 profiles were still applicable. However, the student profiles were a sampling of activities for

PAGE 320

307 students and not a curricul um recommendation. The standards themselves are general guidelines for practice and not delineated by grade levels (ISTE, 2016) Some t echnology skills are included in the Common Core State S tandards ( corestandards.org/ ) Fresno County (CA) Office of Education created a technology scope and sequence chart align ing Common Core standards and district technology recommendations ( lbschools.net/Asset/Files/Curriculum/Technology/CC/LBUSD%20K %2012%20Technology%20Scope%20and%20Sequence%20March%202017.pdf ). Other schools, districts, and states have used the Fresno County DOE work as a guide for their own teachers inclu ding the state w here this research was conducted. The problem with scope and sequence documents, though, is how quickly the tools and learning environments change (ISTE, 2012) In my first book, I outlined the scope and sequence the teachers and I were using at the time and emphasized the evolving nature of the document (Hamilton, 2007) The speed with which technology changes today forces a general and dynamic approach to describing the skills students need. Ribb le and Bailey (2004) proposed nine categories of digital citizenship for K 12 students: etiquette, communication, education, access, commerce, responsibility, rights, safety, and security. Like the ISTE Student Standards (2016) the categories are intentionally broad to cover the wide age span of K 12 students. Based on my observatio ns of students, I propose elementary school technology instruction introduce and reinforce ten skill areas to build a solid digital repertoire for student success in secondary school and beyond (Figure 27).

PAGE 321

308 Figure 27. Digital repertoire for elementary s tudents. Instruction in these areas should be on going, with teachers assuming every repertoire category needs to be reinforced regularly. The goal is growth in digital repertoires to enable students to adapt as digital tools and the digital world evolve. The ten categories listed in Figure 27 reflect digital skills students I observed needed and often lacked. The teachers at TSE and REA rarely offered explicit instruction on what they were asking students to do with technology They seemed to assume stu dents already had digital skills in place as many teachers do (Combes, 2009; EC DL Foundation, 2014; Karchmer Klein & Shinas, 2012; Ladbrook & Probert, 2011) However, insufficient instruction to build digital competence leaves students unprepared for secondary school expectations and vulnerable to digital safety risks (ECDL Foundation, 2014; Nigram & Collier, 2010) The categories listed in Figure 27 may be sorted into three groupings: technical competence information literacy, and digital citizenship. Technical competence includes developing flexibility across apps and devices; choosing appropriate digital tools to demonstrate

PAGE 322

309 learning; and troubleshooting technical problems. Students who develop flexibil ity across applications and devices can transfer generic knowledge, such as logging on, managing toolbars, and accessing help, to new situations, a necessity for adapting to the rapid changes in technologies. Students can choose appropriate ways to demons trate their learning when they have developed familiarity with 1) basic tools such as wordprocessing, spreadsheets, presentations, cameras, and audio and video recorders; 2) basic processes such as keyboarding, saving, editing and revising, and manipulat ing visuals; and 3) basic procedures such as naming, organizing, sharing, and submitting files. Additionally, students need to develop troubleshooting skills across devices and applications. Troubleshooting provides opportunities for students to develop c ritical thinking and problem solving skills as well as share their knowledge with others (ISTE 2012; Sterling, 2016) Information lite racy skills are essential for students to locate, evaluate, and ethically use information on topics of interest (Eisenberg, 2008) These skills no only enable students to conduct research in school, but also empower them to be critical thinkers when they encounter media and multimedia messages in less protected settings outside of school (Karchmer Klein & Shinas, 2012; Nigram & Collier, 2010) Of equal importance is teaching students to respect copyright and intellectual property rights (Hamilton, 2015; ISTE, 2016) Instruction on information literacy skills used to be the domain of librarians, and elementary teachers may not have sufficient knowledge to teach the skills (Probert, 2009) Yet, secondary teachers often assume children have gained the skills in elementary school and do not teach the skills explicitly either (Ladbrook & Probert, 2011) At the elementary level, d igital citizenship skills cover both social skills needs and safety and security concerns. Social skills include balancing online and offline time; showing respect

PAGE 323

310 and kindness to others online, and collaborating with others on creative tasks. Elementary children often enjoy playing outside after school, weather permitting, or participating in sports. Many children meet the expectation of being physically active at l east an hour a day ( https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/be active/ways to be active/index.html ). daily out of school screen time exceeds two hours, they are le ss likely to be involved in 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity outside of school hours (Melkevik, Torsheim, Iannotti, & Wold, 2010) Teaching children to balance their total screen time with physically active play outside of school hours may reduce the incidence of risky online behaviors (Hsi, 2007; Savina, Mills, Atwood, & Cha, 2017) Just as teachers reinforce face to face respect and kindness among children, they need to emph asize respectful and kind behavior online. For instance, teaching children how to respond to online posts has just as much relevance to the classroom as teaching the art of writing thank you letters. Learning how to interact with others online can prevent unintentional offense with collaborating with others online. Students should have opportunities in elementary school to work collaboratively with others on digital tasks, and part of collaboration is the importance of positive interactions among partners. The safety and security aspects of digital citizenship concern protecting private information for self and others and recognizing online dangers. Many cybersecurity curricula for elementary students, such as Common Sense Media ( commonsense.org ), iKeepSafe ( generationsafe.ikeepsafe.org ), and Center for Identity ( identity.utexas.edu/childrens education programs ), address protecting private information. Other online dangers, such as phishing, viruses, online predators, and malware, are generally not covered in elementary curricula, even though as many at 30% of children under the age of 13 (and so barred from the sites under the terms of agreement) have social networking accounts on sites such as Twitter and Facebook

PAGE 324

311 (Blaya & Fartoukh, 2016) Primary students often are unaware of the risks they face when they are online (Valcke, De Wever, Van Keer, & Schellens, 2011; Valcke, Schellens, Van Keer, & Gerarts, 2007) Technical competence in digital repertoires Students at TSE and REA showed limited technical competence. Of necessity, students had developed flexibility across digital devices. At classroom and Apple computer s in the technology lab. Students at REA had used iPads for the previous four years and in the observation year were adapting to Chromebooks. In interviews, some students talked about using iPods, Kindle Fire, game systems, and other devices at home. Stu dents had less experience with choosing appropriate digital tools to demonstrate learning. In this area of technical knowledge, I included tools, processes, and procedures students needed to know in order to make choices. Except for the science summative a ssessment projects at REA, where only a few students used digital tools for their projects, students were not given freedom of choice. However, even if teachers had offered students the opportunities to make choices, students had few options for tools or p rocesses. Predominantly, students used the tools of word processing and presentations and the process of keyboarding for their in school work. The predominance of word processing introduce d questions about appropriate use of technology. For instance, stu dents were asked to compose, edit, and revise onscreen. Research has shown elementary students compose more complete sentences and longer essays when they handwrite (Berninger, Abbott, Augsburger, & Garcia, 2009) By requiring almost all of writing to be digitized, teachers place d students, particularly those with slow typing speeds at a disadvantage (Kiefer et al., 2015) Writing about content improves learning about that content (Bazerman et al., 2017) But, because typing involve s less information processing than

PAGE 325

312 handwriting, students whose every written assignment on content is typed may not learn as much as they would if they handwrote the information (Savina et al., 2017) Besides, as Nightshadow said, using Google docs regularly wa Additionally, word processing required keyboarding skills and that, too, had implications Keyboard ing skills. As mentioned in Chapter VI poor keyboarding skills decrease (Barkaoui, 2014; Torkildsen et al., 2016) When students type at least as fast as they handwrite the quality of word processed texts should improve because students no longer need to commit as much cognitive attention to text production (Con nelly, Gee, & Walsh, 2007) At TSE, the need for keyboard familiarity was addressed through the computer lab special, which did enable most TSE fourth graders to type reasonably well. Some of the students may have been reaching a point where their typin g speed approximated their handwriting speed. slow typing rates. It appeared their slow typing rates contributed to their distractibility while they were working on assignments. At REA, students had no technology classes for specials, so skills had to be addressed in the classroom. Star required keyboarding practice in her homeroom for two months in preparation for state testing, but the opportunity was not avail able for students in other homerooms. Poor keyboarding skills slowed students as they typed assignments, and resulted in the large number of students who had overdue work. The slowest typists engaged me as a scribe when they had to type paragraphs.

PAGE 326

313 Presentations. experiments they had done, adapted, and researched. As I walked around the classroom while ws was evident. However, students were not inclined to listen to my suggestions. As ha d been noted by other researchers (Burnett & Myers, 2006) students chose to focus attention on the visuals. For instance, students spent a lot of time changing slide backgrounds Choices such as dark red horror font on black and dark purple backgrounds seemed wonderful when students viewed the present ations on their Chromebook screens, but were unreadable when enlarged. Students also illustrated their slides with pictures found through searches, even though often the images only loosely related to the science topics. Students did not use well chosen pi ctures, bullet points, or short phrases to convey information. Instead, slides had extensive text c opied and pasted from online sites and squeezed in as size 10 or 12 font. When students presented their shows, they took turns reading aloud from the laptop screen. They rarely looked at the projected slides and may not have realized how little of the information was visible to the audience. Had Faith taught some key skills for presentations (minimal words on screen, color combinations, font sizes, appropria te use of images, crediting online sources for text and images, instruction they needed to be successful, creating a group slideshow was a one time experience i their lives. Natalie outlined the topic of for the eight slides in the p resentations. Otherwise,

PAGE 327

314 students coached each other on capturing, editing, and adding photos to the slides. Students did not present their slideshows to one another. Some students in the enrichment class had created slideshows in a gift ed/talented media c lass and could draw on those experiences. Half reading students created slideshows about plant life cycles without coaching from Star (she was absent). The students may have learned their skills in other classes since, to my knowledge, Star did n ot give guidance for slideshows although I saw slideshows in another 5/6 campus classroom. conformed to practices I had seen in other elementary classrooms. The students used standardized backg rounds, consistent fonts, and bulleted text. Troubleshooting computer problems. problems for them (Faith and Natalie) or enlisted students to coach one another. Some students had strong troubleshooting skills; oth ers struggled to complete basic tasks, such as log on, refresh screens, navigate to webpages, and manage files. Star suggested her students needed instruction files, but she did not teach the skills when students had problems. When students expressed difficulty or frustration because of a lack of technical skills, teachers rarely used the teachable moments to review best practices in using a tool or model problem solving strategies. The lack of attention to technical skills sugg ests teachers either believe children already have the skills in place or do not consider skills development as part of their teaching responsibility. Information literacy competence. ability to conduct o nline research, an essential skill throughout life (Eisenberg, 2008) When the

PAGE 328

315 teachers in the study attended elementary school as children research resources were books and encyclopedias. The information had already been vetted, and librarians coached students on how to avoid plagiarism. The internet information explosion has complicated research proces ses for teachers and students. Additionally, the non linear, visually distracting appearance of information on the internet p rompt [s] shallow exploratory behavior rather than deep and systematic search and may lead to the so called butterfly defect, an ill structured, frail, and superficial network of associations rather than a well structured knowledge base. Therefore, without digital literacy skills, using the Internet as an informational source may result in a fragmented knowledge network and compromise deep comprehension processes (Savina et al., 2017, p. 84) Students at both TSE and REA were required to participate in research projects. Students were expected to search online for information, evaluate it, and write or orally report what their research revealed. Because TSE had a licensed teacher librarian and students attended a library special, fourth graders may have been taught some information literacy skills in the library. REA had been without the library paraprofessional for two years and without a library professional for at least five years. REA students did not visit the library for specials or on any regular schedule. characteristics of a persuasive paragraph. She asked one group to scan a book chapter on the topic, another group to read a persuasive paragraph and create their own list, a third group to glean information from a worksheet packet, and the final group, her most advanced students, to look online. The th ree students in the online group worked independently and used broad topic keywords, which brought up a wealth of resources for each of them. They began clicking on the top result s and, if they could not find the specific information quickly, returned to t he search res ults and clicked on the next link on the list. At the end of fifteen minutes, the group had not

PAGE 329

316 yet located any resources for their topic. Later Faith told me she was surprised students had such difficulty because an earlier class had found on e child friendly site immediately. fourth grade. They paired to conduct their searches on iPads. Two groups went immediately to child friendly sites to search for t heir specific spiders or crickets which represented some knowledge of online research strategies The other two groups conducted broader searches and they were on a webpage with scientific descriptions of their spider. As I scanned the page to locate the information for them, I recognized the language was too advanced for fourth graders. The text heavy page may also have been overwhelming. arch skills have been detailed in the previous chapters. Students demonstrated few library information skills. Most often, students I observed began their research with image searches. They scanned the images and copied any pictures they considered pertinent. From what I observed, they rarely visited the original pages for the images to read about the phenomena. When students accessed webpages with text, they copied the information wholesale, without any effort to determine whether th e information could be confirmed by another source. In neither school did the teachers talk to students about citing their sources for either text or images or evaluating the sites for credibility The lack of instruction on how to conduct searches, eval uate sources, or ethically use information and images, left students without basic information literacy skills they will need in secondary classrooms, undergraduate programs, and many careers (Eisenberg, 2008)

PAGE 330

317 Research on information literacy defined as the skills of searching for, accessing, evaluating, and ethically using information has shown teach online research strategy skills, yet the teachers are not addressing the skills in classrooms (Ladbrook & Probert, 2011; Probert, 2009) A review of literature about information problem solving (IPS), or what American teachers call information literacy, revealed: Students of all ages encoun ter problems with solving information problems. Aspects as deriving search term [sic] and evaluating sources and information are often problematic. (Walraven, Brand gruwel, & Boshuizen, 2008, p. 646) solid instruction in information litera cy. Teachers in the study did not seem to consider such instruction their responsibility in the classroom, although it was unclear who in the schools held the responsibility for preparing students to be information literate. With the explosion of the amoun t of information on the internet and the ease with which individuals can access it, learners can access information quickly and easily. Students need to develop the ability to wade through the vast quantity of responses to select quality sources. Conole an d Dyke (2004) literacy skills need to be taught and retaught with every research project. Digital citizenship compe tence Information literacy and digital citizenship are different from one another, although some aspects of information literacy may be subsumed under digital citizenship (Jones & Mitchell, 2016). The previous section dealt with information literacy or t he ability to use the internet and technology for research. Some researchers would include the aspects of digital safety and identity protection as literacy skills as well (Jones & Mitchell, 2016) Ribble and Bailey (2004) proposed nine categories of digital cit izenship: etiquette,

PAGE 331

318 communication, education, access, commerce, responsibility, rights, safety, and security. In their taxonomy, information literacy fits into the education category. Overall, digital citizenship concerns online behaviors that are approp riate, civil, responsible, and ethical (Hui & Campbell, 2018; Jones & Mitchell, 2016; Nigram & Collier, 2010; T. Tan, 2011) In a rapidly changing digital world, children need a toolkit of digital knowledge and skills to protect themselves from online dangers and to promote their own digital reputations as consumers and producers of digital content (Dotterer, Hedges, & Parker, 2016; Nigram & Collier, 2010) The attributes of new digital media are inherently different from technologies of the past. Digital media can provide information that is instantaneous, interactive, participatory and global. As a result of these attributes, digital media require new attitudes and different gaffes or breaches of etiquette may occur when users communicate or intera ct with others online, not understanding how public their private communications can become. Users can also engage in even more serious activities that include unethical conduct or even hts or do not understand copyright laws that protect the creators of digital materials. Additionally, users need to know that there can be a dark underside to the digital world; there are sites and online activities that can harbor hate, harm, and danger e specially to young and often nave users, such as adolescents and school age children. Not all students in schools are aware of what is appropriate, ethical, or legal as they communicate, create, or consume online content (Hui & Campbell, 2018, pp. 2 3) In the computer lab at TSE, the paraprofessional educator taught digital safety with the resources of Common Sense Media. Fourth grader Luna recite d information on how to protect her identity on line. Students were less successful in other aspects of digital citizenship. For instance, m ost students did not seem to know what computer viruses were or how to prevent viruses. One student had lost home computer privileges because of a downloaded virus. Another student, Rob, mentioned he had not only downloaded a virus, but the virus scrubber his family installed was actually a lso a virus and rendered the computer virtually unusable. At school, students had no administrative rights and the district filte red internet access, so teachers and

PAGE 332

319 students had no natural situations for talking about threats to device security, such as phishing, hacking, and malware The Common Sense Media curriculum did not address threats to computer security Natalie missed an opening for engaging students in conversation about online commenting when o ne student in her response. The posted comment was nonsensical so the infraction did not harm However, the class could h ave engaged in a discussion of why this response was inappropriate without Natalie revealing the perpetrator. Natalie could even have emphasized the built in monitoring that allow ed her to see who had written the comment. Later in the day and privately, sh e could have talked to the student about the comment and determined consequences. who had written the comment She accessed her teacher view while the site was projected so it was visible to all stude nts. Although she talked to the student who posted the comment one on one, the entire class knew what had happened and watched the conversation between Natalie and the student. This reaction from Natalie was contrary to her typical empathetic approach, whi ch may have been because the student had already lost computer privileges twice prior to this event. However, had Natal ie considered teaching digital citizenship her responsibility, she may have chosen to treat the experience as a teachable moment. Stude nts at REA had no formal digital citizenship training, nor did any of the staff ever mention it. Perhaps the rigid control of digital devices in the classrooms and the comprehensive district filtering caused teachers to think their students were well prote cted. They did not seem to consider out of school technology use an issue to be addressed in school. campus teachers expressed grave concerns about their perceptions of computer addiction because they

PAGE 333

320 felt certain students were unwilling to function without technology device s While digital media compulsion (another term for internet addiction) can become a problem for some students, its prevalence among secondary students seems to be less than 5% (Savina et al., 2017) and is associated with other behavioral and emotional disorders (Reed, Vile, Osborne, Romano, & Truzoli, 2015; Wegmann, Stodt, & Brand, 2015) One reason the teachers outlaw ed online games was to promote relationships among students, rather than dependence on devices for entertainment a strategy encouraged for combatting internet addiction (Wegmann et al., 2015) With little to no guidance about digital citizenship at school, students at both schools were at risk for unsafe irresponsible, and unethical behaviors when they used devices in unfiltered and unmonitored settings. Teaching students civil, respective online behavior and preparing them with digital citizenship knowledge can assist them in assessing and avoiding risk (Nigram & Collier, 2010) Teacher i academic learning, and efficiency. Instead, the lack of skills caused students to waste instructional time, which often deprived them of time to interact with peers and increased th e pressure to complete their work. The teachers in this study were born before computers became household items. Much of their development of digital skills happened after they had entered teaching. Originally d istrict trainings focused on administrative tasks such as recording grades, assessment data, and attendance. Newly online component of lesson templates, instructional slideshows and assessments. Teachers were

PAGE 334

321 encouraged to follow the new program with fidelity for at least the first year, which meant any previously designed lessons incorporating technology were no longer relevant. As technology proliferated, the three teachers in the study gained access to a rich array of technology devices. In their classrooms, they had laptop computers for their work, document cameras and projectors, and access to a printer. At home they also had a wealth of devices, including the one device a ll three treasured as prima ry devices their smartphones. They each presented their use of digital devices differently. Digital reputations. Star described herself as unskilled with and uninterested in technology. She loved the convenience of her phone i n her personal life and used the district provided laptop for school business, but otherwise, dismissed technology tools. Faith had a reputation among teachers for knowing a lot about technology, but less than Natalie. On the other hand, students saw Faith as the most skilled teacher with technology because she could trouble shoot their technology problems. Faith followed the lead of others: if someone told her about a digital tool or gave a demonstration, she was willing to try it. Faith did not seek digital knowledge on her own, though. Faith was not as quick as Natalie to acquire new technologies. Still, she attended confer ences with Natalie and led some professional development sessions at TSE. Natalie enjoyed a reputation as a technology leader in at TSE. Except for Principal Johnson who had an advanced degree in instructional technology, no other teacher in the school ha d such a high reputation for technology knowledge. Natalie seemed to be the first to learn about new technologies and enjoyed the prospect of learning new technical skills. She sought professional development online through blogs and professional learning groups.

PAGE 335

322 Natalie also had a strong reputation as an instructional leader. She had won teaching awards, including one for the 2016 2017 school year. She delighted in students and paid attention to their emotional and social needs as much as to their academi c needs. Based on her reputation as technology and instructional leader in the school, district personnel considered Natalie a technology integration star. So did I. But when I analyzed the little instructional use and few opportunities for students to be involved in creative, open ended technology work. Even in the STEM lab during enrichment time, when Natalie could have let students explore new technologies on their own in order to teach th eir classmates what they had learned or created, Natalie limited the ir experiences to cookbook style projects for which she had vendor provided lesson plans. On one day for about five minutes, two students who finished their robot construction early experi mented with coding their robot and discovered how to change the color of a sensor. Natalie mentioned the discovery to me as an example of students teaching her a new w all students time to explore the coding potential. She chose to follow the lesson plan instead. When I interviewed him, he talked about his passion for using techn ology in his life, from video games to coding in Minecraft and Scratch to digital gadgets around his home. He, like Natalie, enjoyed exploring the latest technology tools I have termed the attraction to the newest, flashiest digital gadgets as embracing digital bling It seemed as though being the first to own or use new digital tools took precedence over thinking reflectively about the need, purpose, and affordances of the tools. Digital bling created

PAGE 336

323 an appearance of technology competence and fed into t Teachers gain their digital reputations through interactions with their peers. Yet, consider when and how teachers inter act with colleagues Rarely are they free to observe one another during instruction. Instead, they interact in meetings, over lunch, and during planning times. They draw conclusions from what they hear from their peers, not what they have seen in the class digital bling or trouble shooting success, the less confident technology users assume their colleagues are not only more knowledgeable about technology but also more success ful at technology integration. A second source for digital reputations is the school administrator. In my experience, when administrators notice a teacher using technology with students, particularly if other teachers are resistant, the administrator assu mes the technology using teacher has extensive technology integration expertise. One of the district technology integration specialist s mentioned he had gained his reputation with the building principal because he used a projector regularly when no one else was. Unfortunately, administrators, who often had little experience themselves teaching with technology, can be so impressed with the glitz of a tool, they fail to discern whether a teacher is blendin g pedagogy and content effectively with digital tools. As a result of the ways digital reputations are built, school technology leaders and district integration specialists may or may not possess robust knowledge of pedagogy Rarely will an integration sp ecialist or building technology leader have deep content knowledge for all grade levels. Although seen as experts, the individuals may have limited understanding of how the digital tools available to teachers fit into different grade levels and different c ontent areas. Yet,

PAGE 337

324 integration specialists are expected to work with all teachers in multiple disciplinary and school cultures to promote integration. also have implications for their own professional growth in technology use Faith and Natalie had opportunities to attend both state and national technology conferences where they could build their digital repertoires. Few of their colleagues had the same chances. h ouse technology trainer. The district used a train the trainer model where teachers who volunteered were given intensive training with technology and expected to work within their schools to teach others. Gradually, he changed how he viewed learning with t echnology : When I first started in the district even, there was a push of hey here are some really cool apps that we bought for thousands and thousands of dollars. Here, use them in your he more I used technology, the more I did the digital [trainer], the more you start to read that technology really is meant to complement what you already do or create something we never would have been able to make before. ital tools gave him release time for intensive technology training, access to readings about good integration strategies, and time to reflect on what he was learning. His thinking changed from using cool tools in the classroom to thinking about how the too ls might complement instruction to improve student learning. Training in technology. Harris et al. (2009) pointed out teachers incorporate technologies based on the support and training they receive. Often professional development in technology deals with learning how to use a particular digi In essence, the technology experts offer training on gadgets. Star said workshops focused on using the features of gadgets or online tools did not satisfy her training needs even though she appreciated being taught how digital tools functioned.

PAGE 338

325 Without how to training, she was unlikely to even try to use a tool. But she also craved specific ideas of how tools could be use d effectively with her content and students. When she talked about training on using an interactive whiteboard, she mentioned fumbling with the tool when she should b e focused on how students were grasping the content. But the district training did not spur her to turn the interactivity on because she felt she neither knew enough about operating the board to use it seamlessly nor about how it would fit with her instruc tion. teammates were willing to help her learn to use her interactive board, but she was reluctant to take the time to learn the tool without solid ideas of how to incorporate it into her teaching. If she had asked them to instruct her on the use of the board, she would feel pressure to implement its use. She was not confident she could come up with a lesson where the board would enhance her instruction. Star also mentioned training on Plick e r ( plickers.co m/ ) an online formative assessment tool where the teacher uses a smartphone to capture student responses. She was intrigued with the idea of quick formative assessments, but she needed someone to help her plan the types of formative assessment data she could collect and how she could use the data to improve her instruction. She wanted a technology partner who could brainstorm with her about effective ways to use digital tools with her content and learners. T echnology professional development seldom prov ide s the second level of support Star longed for. For example, a t TSE, both Faith and Natalie taught professional development classes I attended. They were essentially passing along training they had received at a conference.

PAGE 339

326 Faith taught teachers how to use the commenting feature of Verso ( versoapp.com/ ), a cloud based platform for making thinking visible. After a how to demonstration, Faith talked about how she had used the commenting feature in her classroom. While F aith did initiate a discussion about how others could use the tool with their content, she lacked the pedagogical understanding of how to enrich and extend the commenting feature to generate deeper he importance of teaching students how to comment and respond to comments so their contributions would become meaningful. Nor had Faith explored any other aspects of the digital tool. Faith repeated what she had learned in a conference session, and that se ssion had covered only the how to of one small feature of a powerful online tool. Faith taught what she knew and had experienced, which was more advanced than her audience had experienced. Still, without good pedagogical and content discussions, the tool w ould continue to be used simply as a replacement for pencil and paper. In her session, Natalie taught the design process she had learned at a conference. She used all the same materials the presenter had used, including the same generic task. Instruction was geared to adult learning and practicing the steps of the design process. Although class participants worked collaboratively in a hands on situation, the task was not appropriate for elementary students. Teachers did not have time to consider how to ada pt the pedagogic approach to their content instruction or to the use of technology. The professional development initiated thinking about the pedagogy of the design process but failed to make the link between the process, the classroom, and technology. Non e of the training offered at either district seemed to extend beyond gadget introduction or administrative task management Training in technology for students. As has been shown through observations of students, elementary schools needed to be addressing digital litera cy and digital citizenship. The

PAGE 340

327 teachers did not instruct students on explicit technical skills. Perhaps they, like many others (Combes, 2009) assumed digital skills came naturally to students. Or, as with the slideshows, teachers considered the group project an opportunity for students to learn from one another and from their mistakes. No one s problem to be proactive in teaching skills. Nor does literature promot e digital skills instruction embedded in content lessons. Teachers expressed concern about how students might use digita l tools outside of school, but no one approached the topic as a school responsibility. Even when I asked questions directly about information literacy and digital citizenship, none of the teachers took up the topic. Faith and Natalie were confident student s were being taught digital safety in computer lab and had no concerns about other skills. Star and her peers were focused on computing devices being used as tools and on the potential for digital addiction, but they did not connect those concerns with a n eed for digital skills development as a classroom concern. Additionally, all three teachers were using digital tools with students in very restrictive and controlled ways. Students were rarely encouraged to explore through open ended and creative projects or even to create multimodal products to demonstrate what they had learned (Bogard & McMackin, 2012) To be fair, the devices provided to students had little capacity to combine audio, video, images, and text. By choosing to provide internet only devices (Chromebooks and iPads) the district had limited what teachers and s tudents could do. At REA, where the summative science assessment allowed students to pursue self designed group projects with any tools they chose, few groups used technology as their medium.

PAGE 341

328 Those who did choose technology were the students who had learn ed advanced digital skills outside of school and, in some cases, brought digital tools from home. Connection between teacher training and student training. However, classroom instruction replicated technology training they had received Teacher s had been trained on administrative tasks they taught students administrative tasks such as entering reading responses in an online space where the responses could be tracked and downloading or copying teacher files and submitting them in G Suite Stude nts took online quizzes and state assessments. Teachers had been trained to use gadgets and tools. Star had students take pictures with their computers. Students learned how to maneuver through online tool sites like Newsela and Kahoot and Verso. When stu dents were given explicit skills instruction, it was always a how to. As Trooper said, students were told to do things but not why they were doing it. Teachers did not teach what they had not been taught. Research skills at the elementary level had alway s been the purview of school librarians, and responsibility for reinforcing information s Certainly there was no curriculum addressing information and monitoring software released teachers from worrying about inappropriate sites or online hazards at school most of the time. When problems arose, such as when the iPads at TSE were updated and had inappropriate music and album covers, the teachers belie ved it was a district problem to solve. Digital citizenship seemed like a middle school problem, not an elementary school issue. raining had not blended content, pedagogy, and technology. Therefore, teachers had not learned how to blend them. Perhaps teachers failed to realize they were not

PAGE 342

329 blending them. Teachers felt the lessons they taught were engaging when students had digital tools in their hands. That may have seemed like using technology for learning. The Centrality of Efficiency A st riking finding of the research study was the centrality of efficiency as a motivator for using technology in the classroom. The classroom projector simplifie d teach ers using curriculum provided slideshows, demonstrating new skills, playing videos, and showing student work. The introduction of learning platforms, such as G Suite, has mean t teachers can manage All students had to submit their own w ork individually, so even when the work was done collaboratively, every student had to complete all the tasks before submitting an assignment and the teacher had a record for every student. Integrated management systems release d teachers from physically c op ying assignment worksheets, track ing and collect ing papers, distribut ing work or feedback collect ing assessment data, or calculat ing grades. Absentee students c ould assignments, and submit the make up work without troubling the teacher. Teachers save d time and schools save d money. This administrative use of technology in the classroom reflects how the business of schools is done as well as the first level of technology modeling teachers received when th ey were hired At the school and district levels teachers use d technology tools to respond to administrative requests and communicate with colleagues and families. Technology made the business of school ing more efficient. Teachers claim ed the efficiency o f using technology provide d benefits. Faith considered the efficiency a time saver:

PAGE 343

330 I think the time factor is the biggest one. When you don't have to spend ten minutes trying to find the paper, and so on, I think it can allow you to move at a faster pace And allows you to do more instructing rather than gathering of papers and information. Trying s more time for preparation of lessons or reading what they turned in. It gives you more time to read what they've turned in or finding resources to use to teach with. Natalie : It gives you more time you're coaching the stude hands and still give them feedback and give them notes and comments and stuff where -and I can do that for the whole class sitting in front of my computer -versus going around to each of the kids and just giving one on one attention at once. So I think that' s an efficiency thing. Star talked about Google Classroom providing efficiency for her classroom: We got efficiency in how the classroom runs. More time, hopefully less time explaining over and over again what the assignment is because you know when you write on the board, you try to be detailed but you can't write every single thing whereas in Classroom, roups or meeting with kids more. Each of the teachers talked about efficiency providing more time for coaching and interacting with students. I had no data for comparison with earlier years. To some extent, ents more impersonal. When teachers physically hand p apers to students and collect student work, they have opportunities for conversations about performances. Colle cting work and distributing feedback digitally happen ed without direct interactions between teachers and students. The technology devices bec a me intermediaries that distance d teachers and students from one another. Based on student interviews, children wer e not aware whether they received their assignments back unless they had to revise and resubmit the

PAGE 344

331 work. Efficiency may have robbed teachers and students from naturally occurring conversations about learning. In the classroom, teachers interact ed with s tudents but I could not tell whether the interactions were a benefit of saved time to be more like nonverbal monitoring when students took social playing card games, asking about the weekend, chatting about school during Connection Time and passing between classes S tar pulled small groups in her classroom for reading support, although th at was a standard though irregularly enacted, classroom procedure, not an efficiency gained from technology use. On the other hand, the use of documents to outline during small groups Natalie coached students in math work time, but this too was standard classroom practice. In reading, which is when students used technology, she often sat at her desk, perhaps reading what students had submitted. In fact, all three teachers sat at their desks and read on their provided her w ith more time to plan lessons was the truest gain for teachers in an era of high stakes accountability. However, it would be wise not to lose sight of what the efficiency cost students. For the most part, technology was used in efficient ways that replicat ed traditional pencil and paper practices. Teaching children how to be good at word processing to respond to content is unlikely to prepare them for the future after all, as any adult over the age of forty can attest, transitioning from typed reporting t o word processing was a skill easily learned in adulthood.

PAGE 345

332 Students needed practice with critical thinking and problem solving; proficiency in keyboarding, information literacy, and digital citizenship; and open ended opportunities to display creativity. T he Lego Express Build kits and STEM lab activities came closest to providing rich learning experiences for students. All three teachers mentioned they had used technology more creatively in previous years. Faith and Natalie had used iPads for digital stor ytelling and videos. Star had used iPads for student videos and Skype for cross school communications. However, none of the teachers felt such technology uses were possible in the 2016 2017 school year. For one thing, two classrooms were transitioning from iPads, which had video and audio recording built in, to Chromebooks, which did not. Star had six iPads, but they were obsolete and only one app continued to work on them. Natalie indicated the implementation of a new math curriculu m rendered her creative math projects unusable since the projects she had done with students in the past did not fit with the demands of the new curriculum. Districts undoubtedly consider economics first when they face a state mandated need for providing more computing devices to schools. State testing required all students to have devices with keyboards, and Chromebooks were the least expensive devices on the market, had free cloud storage and built in anti virus, and provided district wide management too ls through G Suite (Taylor, 2015) But Chromebooks are internet on ly devices, with Google Chrome as the internet interface and no access to powerful hard drive s where students can house projects (Fulkert, 2015) While REA students had built Chromebooks did not. The lack of features in Chromebooks eliminated previous technology uses. To create multi modal projects, students w ould have need ed access to additional digital devices I did not see in any classroom. Some online tools for creativity may have been available,

PAGE 346

333 but that would have required teachers to search for the right tools. Then, like Verso, tools they found may have turned commercial by the next year The pace of change discourages teachers from getting too attached to digital tools and projects. Implications Implications for T eachers and S tudents The greatest need I saw in the classrooms was for a coherent, scho olwide scope and sequence for digital repertoire development as represented by Figure 27 Students at TSE were fortunate to receive digital safety lessons every year, which had been mandated by the district throughout K 12. However, the free digital safety curriculum did not adequately cover the kinds of digital risks students faced at home. REA students had no access to information about staying safe online. C hildren needed significant training on information literacy and digital citizenship topics (Ballard, March, & Sand, 2009; Kuiper, Volman, & Terwel, 2016; Ladbrook & Probert, 2011; Livingstone, 2008; Probert, 2009) Asking students to r esearch online without giving them the information literacy tools to successfully locate, evaluate, synthesize and ethically use resources is a form of instructional malpractice. Additionally, when teachers encourage students to work online, they have a c oncomitant responsibility to ensure students know the potential risks of being online. That means addressing style and tone of online communications, influences of media design and messages, and ramifications of online behaviors. Because not all students have access to out of school opportunities to acquire digital skills, teachers also have a responsibility to explicitly teach the digital skills they expect students to use. When students are giving presentations, teachers need to address best practices in

PAGE 347

334 presentation formats, messages, and demeanor as well as the how to aspects of the digital tool. Movie making requires planning, which includes analyzing the audience, message, and presentation format; storyboarding; filming; reviewing; and editing. Each step requires explicit modeling and scaffolding with the end goal in sight. In order for teachers to do the significant amount of technology training student s need, districts must first determine what digital skills are appropriate at each grade level. By what is now an invisible need into a visible response. Then districts must provide intensive, paid for, and comprehensive professional development on digital c itizenship, information literacy, and the integration of content, pedagogy, and technology (Dotterer et al ., 2016; Harris et al., 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Probert, 2009) As part of the training, districts should embed additional staff members with strong pedagogical and technology skills in each school to co teach with and coach all teachers in meetin g the technology expectations (Vatanartiran & Karadeniz, 2015) Staffing libraries with licens ed librarians will opportunities to learn about information literacy and will provide additional support for teachers who struggle to teach information literacy in their classrooms (Jackson, 2007) Of course, to address digital repertoire development adequately, administrators, districts, and state and national educational policy bodies will need to prio ritize what children need to know and be able to do. Given the current accountability emphasis on reading and math, other content areas, including technology education, are often squeezed out of the standard day in digital repertoires means displacing something else. Elementary instructional expectations already exceed the time allotted for teaching, and topics such as digital citizenship and information literacy are time intensive.

PAGE 348

335 The embedded coach can take resp onsibility for reaching out to parents to provide digital knowledge for home use of digital devices. Parents may not have digital devices and internet service at home, but they most likely will have access to technology through work. Whatever their level o f access, parents need as much knowledge as students on how to manage online risk, evaluate online media, and live ethically online. Additionally, schools need to address the digital divide by providing students with out of school access to technology dev ices and internet. This is not an easy task. In some cases, low income housing is clustered, which would enable local businesses or non profit organizations to partner to provide wireless access to an area. For instance, i n towns, low income housing is oft en in tightly packed trailer parks (Lichter et al., 2010; MacTavish & Salamon, 2006; Nelson & H iemstra, 2008) as it was for TSE students. At REA, affordable housing was clustered in an apartment complex. One possibility is partnering with an internet provider to acquire mobile broadband hotspots. Mobile broadband hotspots can provide internet access for clusters of homes ( sflbroadband.com/ ). If students had free internet access at home, schools could implement an overnight or weekend device loaner program for students who lack devices at home. However, square miles of hamlets, ranches, foothills, and forestland. Some REA families l acked electricity or running water. The digital divide for those students would need to be addressed through internet on buses or after school programs where students could have training or exploration time and be delivered home on a late bus. Only by prov iding out of school opportunities for low income children can the digital gap be lessened.

PAGE 349

336 Implications for Teacher Educators The burden of preparing preservice teachers for the demanding task of teaching became more complex when digital tools were introduced into classrooms. Although most students in preservice education today probably grew up with access to digital tools, teacher educators should not assume preservice teachers will be able to integrate technology into classrooms naturally or i ntuitively (Lei, 2014; Livingstone, 2008) The teachers at TSE and REA demonstrated the c omplexity of merging content and pedagogy with technology knowledge. Additionally although young adults appear competent with technology, they often have narrow interests, are ineffective with online searches, and demonstrate poor skills in searching and evaluating information (Hargittai, Fullerton, Menchen Trevino, & Thomas, 2010; Lei, 2014) Digital citizenship is not always included in teacher education programs (Hui & Campbell, 2018) In other words, preservice teachers lack the knowledg e they need to integrate technology and to provide guidance on information literacy and digital citizenship to their students (Lei, 2014; Pusey & Sadera, 2012) Unfortunately, adults often assume the skills develop naturally (Probert, 2009) or are (Pusey & Sadera, 2012) Secondary teachers often as sume digital competency skills, information literacy, and digital citizenship have been taught at the elementary level and do not need to be addressed (Ladbrook & Probert, 2011) But, e lementary teachers focus on teaching basic literacy and numeracy skills and have little instructional time left for other subjects (Blank, 20 13; Heafner & Fitchett, 2012; VanFossen, 2005) At a time when even children between ages six and eight have Facebook accounts (Blaya & Fartoukh, 2016; Holloway, Green, & Livingstone, 2013) and many children and young adults trust search

PAGE 350

337 engines to protect them from unreliable sources (Hargittai et al., 2010; Jackson, 2007; Livingstone, 2008) teachers need strategies for helping children navigate the internet wisely. Implications f or Policy Makers Teachers have faced an accelerated pace of change since the 1990s and the movement to nationalize education as states have developed, adopted and refreshed educ ation standards and accountability tests (King, 2011; LaVenia, Cohen Vogel, & Lang, 2015; Ravitch, 201 0) In the state where this research took place, state standards have been revised twice in less than ten years. Additionally, elementary state assessments have changed in format and content three times in seven years and teachers are preparing for another change by 2019 ( chalkbeat.org ). Technology standards, available through the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, iste.org), have also been revised since their adoption in 2007, another mo ving target for teachers. Districts struggle to keep up with the pace of change and the state department of education has provided curriculum guides on its website guides dated 2014, which was prior to the most recent state assessment changes. Additiona lly, there is low alignment between standards and the assessments of those standards (Polikoff, Porter, & Smithson, 2011) Each time the standards and/or assessments change, teachers must adapt using the curriculum materials they have on hand, which may no longer align with either the standards or assessments. Elementary teachers face increased pressure of curriculum material changes, since in many districts, curriculum materials adoption takes place about every seven years (Schoenfeld, 2004) on a rotating schedule For elementary teachers, who teach at least five content areas, the annual adoption cycle of new curricular materials means they are adapting to new curricular

PAGE 351

338 materi als almost e very year. One reason elementary teachers give for platooned instruction is the possibility of focusing on only one or two content areas (Fink, 2017; Gewertz, 2014) an action that reduces the amoun t of change. At TSE, Natalie was adjusting to a new math curriculum, which caused her to abandon the technology integration projects she had designed for the previous math curriculum. Star lacked appropriate curricular materials for science, social studies and writing, although since her school was part of a large district with curricular materials adoptions procedures, I do not know why. However, the lack of materials meant Star spent much of her time seeking materials online and cobbling together units c omprised of disconnected resources. The resources were often not at the appropriate reading levels for her students and did not necessarily align with what the state considered the important big ideas. Technology is also constantly evolving (Abbitt, 2011) which adds pressure to teachers who want to integrate technology into their classrooms. For instance, Star had to adapt from iPads to Chromebooks at the start of the school year without any professional development on how Chromebooks worked or any time to experiment with the devices Natalie was able to retain her iPads (which changed to Chromebooks the following year), but dealt with changing curricular materials. Faith had to adjust from shared iPads the previous year to one to one Chromebooks. For all three teachers, devices allocated for s tudents were different from their district provided MacBooks. Additionally, Faith and Star were adapting to Google Apps while Natalie had no access to the Google Suite. Online applications were unpredictable as well. Faith and Natalie loved Verso and used it throughout the school year, but the product changed to a subscription based service by the summer. Districts did not include the teachers in the technology adoption process and often gave teachers little notice about changes.

PAGE 352

339 T he complexity of rede fined standards, newly adopted curricular materials and constantly evolving technology create obstacles for teachers mastering content, technical competence and digital citizenship/information literacy skills while trying to blend those with pedagogy for effective teaching and learning. needs and outside expectations. The rate of change must slow down if we want teachers to succeed and make meaningful use of digital tools in their classrooms (Valli & Buese, 2007) Slow ing down the changes to standards will give teachers time to successfully absorb them Slowing down the change s to address new content expectations. Slowing down changes to content materials can provide space for teachers to think about how technology fits into instruction. S lowing down technology initiatives and swapping out of devices may let teachers become adept with the devices they have so they can see how those devices can support student learning. Valli and Buese noted in their study of elementary teachers who faced a revised assessment program, new proficiency standards, and new curriculum in math and reading over two years: The summative effect of too many policy demands coming too fast often resulted in teacher discouragement, role ambiguity, and superficial re sponse s to administrative goals (2007, p. 521) Directions for Future Research This research study focused on the everyday technology practices in elementary classrooms in a town school and a rural school. Literature about town schools is almost non existent, so the information a bout TSE begins to build a base for additional research on education in towns and need s to be supplemented with further ethnographic research For instance,

PAGE 353

340 researchers have identified how low income immigr ants are marginalized socially and economically through housing options in towns (MacTavish & Salamon, 2006; Nelson & Hiemstra, 2008; Wuthnow, 2013) Low income and predominantly Spanish speaking residents in Smalltown lived in a trailer park a couple of miles outside town Their isolation contributed to the digital divide within the town because students in the trailer park had less access to t echnology devices and internet. Parents had mobile devices provided by employers and these devices were not shared with children Studies conducted in low income neighborhoods in rural towns may uncover how parents on one environments. Do families value technology based experiences for their children? Do parents fee l their own access navigate the differences in how they experience using digital devices? Does access to technology devices change at home as students enter secondary s chooling? Are there resources within the trailer park that enable parents and children to have access to internet even when they lack connectivity at home? Many of these questions lend themselves to ethnographic research using the theoretical framework of this study. Rural contexts differ greatly from one another, and few rural communities will mirror Rural Junction. For that reason, much more ethnographic research is needed to understand how the rural context influences technology uses at school. At Rural Junction, despite the one to one relationships among students who had little opportunity to interact, and empowering students to take leadership on ideas of their c hoosing superseded technology use. This was evidenced by the lack of any training in library and technology skills during specials.

PAGE 354

341 Research could uncover whether local interests take precedence over technology use in other rural schools. What do parents value? How do other rural schools manage the spread out nature of their residential neighborhoods? Has the concept of Connection Time been implemented in other places where almost all students are bused? How do schools manage the digital divide among stude nts or teach essential technology skills in schools where many students do not have access to digital devices outside school? Certainly, there is a need for literature on aspects of technology skill development in elementary schools. How do schools and dis tricts plan for instruction on information literacy and digital citizenship? How do schools involve parents in addressing child safety and device security? How do schools provide equitable access to technology experiences when some students also need acade mic interventions and/or have no digital access outside of school? What technical skills are necessities for students? Who teaches the skills? When? The theoretical framework for this research study brought together four disparate theories to describe how digital repertoires develop for individuals. This framework could be adopted for ment. The current study explored transacted practices. Studying additional social could uncover new understandings about y Professional development for teachers should also come under scrutiny. How are teachers being supported in their efforts to use technology wisely with their students? How do integration specialists provid e both how to use and how to integrate training in the limited time they are provided? Which is more important to teachers? Which has more impact on students?

PAGE 355

342 The instructional load on elementary teachers is heavy, which makes platooning attractive. But w hat are the affordances both opportunities and constraints, of platooning for student learning ? Finally, how would understanding change if the ethnographic research were expanded to schools in urban and suburban settings, as I had originally envisioned ? Research in those settings, which are much more commonly found in education literature, may highlight commonalities and differences which would strengthen the knowledge about technology use in elementary schools. Limitations For this ethnographic study, I spent extensive time in three classrooms observing and p day activities in order to learn how technology was being used. I also talked to teachers and students about their home and school uses of technology. For the study I chose two contexts that have not frequently appeared in education research: towns and rural communities. One limitation is the small number of locations. Three classrooms can highlight some commonalities across the classrooms, but the information may not be generalized to other locales. For the rural school especially, I tried to provide sufficient description so that readers could determine how the context might compare to their own. The research at REA was less comprehensive than at TSE First, my res earch was limited by the students available for interviews. Because interviews at REA had to be conducted at school during Connection Time when the time was being used for catching up students who had missing assignments, I had a limited pool of potential interviewees. Only one student came from the affordable housing development that provided about 50% of the students in the school. This

PAGE 356

343 skewed the student data. Also, because students were all bused, I was not privy to before and after school conversation At REA I also was restricted from spending planning time with the teaching team and from being in the school when students were being tested for district and state purposes. The restriction decreased the number of hours and days I spent at REA, as well as hindered the development of deep relationships with the teaching team. Ethnography provides a wealth of information, not all of which can fit into a dissertation. ithout leaving any of them recognizable. Their participation has contributed to my inquiry of how elementary teachers and students understand the use of technology in classrooms within the context of towns and rural areas. With the rich description of the two contexts and three classrooms, readers can assess in what ways these classrooms bear resemblance to their own contexts and, perhaps, glean fresh insights about using technology in elementary classrooms.

PAGE 357

344 REFERENCES Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Educati on 27 (4), 134 143. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784670 Explaining variations in internet use. Information Systems Research 20 (2), 277 294. https://doi .org/10.1287/isre.1080.0194 Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 179 211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749 5978(91)90020 T Allen, K. P. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher p ractices. The Professional Educator 34 (1), 1 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.01.002 Anderson, M. (2015). Technology device ownership: 2015 Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology device ownership 2015 Angers, J., & Mach tmes, K. (2005). An ethnographic case study of beliefs, context, factors, and practices of teachers integrating tecnology. The Qualitative Report 10 (4), 771 794. Arnold, M. L., Newman, J. H., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C. B. (2005). A look at the condition of rural education research: Setting a direction for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education 20 (6), 1 25. https://doi.org/1551 0670 Aronson, E. (2002). Building empathy, compassion, and achievement in the jigsaw classroom. In E. Aronson (Ed.) Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 209 225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978 012064455 1/50013 0 Atkinson, P. (2015). For ethnography Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Atsoglou, K., & An investigation based on decomposed theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence (IJDLDC) 3 (2), 20 37. https://doi.org/10.4018/ jdldc.2012040102 Ayers, J. (2011). Make rural schools a priority: Considerations for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2011/08/04/10216/make ru ral schools a priority/ Baker, B., Sciarra, D. G., & Farrie, D. (2010). Is school funding fair? A national report card Newark, N.J.: Education Law Center. Retrieved from http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/

PAGE 358

345 Baker, L. (2012). A history of school design and its indoor environmental standards, 1900 to today Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Retrieved from http://pitt.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQSDQzTTVPMk4FH X5unmpoBHQsMCknWhokpppamFkmoayoRCrN3YQYmF LzRBlk3FxDnD10QRMW8Q WQMxfiXV1MjS1BR52IMfAmgtZ 55WA94ilAACxrhwx Ballard, S. D., March, G., & Sand, J. K. (2009). Creation of a research community in a K 12 school systems using action research and evidence based practice. Evidence Based Library and Informat ion Practice 4 (2), 24 36. Banister, S. (2005). Exemplary technology integrators in the elementary school: The impact in a fifth grade classroom. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology 1 (1), 28 39. Barkaoui, K. (2014). Examining the imp act of L2 proficiency and keyboarding skills on scores on TOEFL iBT writing tasks. Language Testing 31 (2), 241 259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213509810 Barley, Z. A., & Beesley, A. D. (2007). Rural school success: What can we learn? Journal of Resear ch in Rural Education 22 (1), 1 16. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development 49 (4), 193 224. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094368 Barron, B. (2010). Conceptualizing and tracing learning pathways over time and setting. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook 109 (1), 113 127. Barron, B., Martin, C. K., Takeuchi, L., & Fithian, R. (2009). Parents as learning partners in the development of technological flu ency. International Journal of Learning and Media 1 (2), 55 77. https://doi.org/10.1162/ijlm.2009.0021 Barron, B., Walter, S. E., Martin, C. K., & Schatz, C. (2010). Predictors of creative computing participation and profiles of experience in two Silicon V alley middle schools. Computers and Education 54 (1), 178 189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.017 Baxter, I. A., Jack, F. R., & Schrodder, M. J. A. (1998). The use of repertory grid method to elicit perceptual data from primary school children. Food Quality and Preference 9 (l/2), 73 80. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report 13 (4), 544 559. Bazerman, C., Applebee, A. N., Berninger, V. W., Schleppegrell, M. (2017). Forum: Taking the long view on writing development. Research in the Teaching of English 51 (3), 351 361.

PAGE 359

346 of barriers to technology implementation in rural schools. In SITE 2015 (pp. 1321 1327). Las Vegas, NV. Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary school: Towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 13 (3), 327 348. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390400200186 multiple measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 37 (1), 45 63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782425 correct? In 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Seattle, WA. Bennett, S. J., & Maton, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (5), 321 331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365 2729.2010.00360.x s best & worst states for teachers. Retrieved April 14, 2018, from https://wallethub.com/edu/best and worst states for teachers/7159/ Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009). Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes i n children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 32 (1994), 123 142. https://doi.org/10.2307/27740364 Besser, T. L. (2012). The consequences of social responsibility for small business owners in small towns. Business Ethics 21 (2), 129 139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467 8608.2011.01649.x Blank, R. K. (2013). Science instructional time is declining in elementary schools: What are the implications for student achievement and closing the gap? Science Education 97 (6), 830 847. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21078 Blaya, C., & Fartoukh, M. (2016). Digital uses, victimization and online aggression: A comparative study between primary school and lower secondary school students in France. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Researc h 22 (2), 285 300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610 015 9293 7 Bogard, J. M., & McMackin, M. C. (2012). Combining traditional and new literacies in a 21st century writing workshop. Reading Teacher 65 (5), 313 323. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01048 Buabeng information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology 8 (1), 136 155.

PAGE 360

347 Buckenmeyer, J. A. (2010). Beyond computers in the classroom: Factors related to technology adoption to enhance teaching and learning. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER) 3 (4), 27 36. Bulfin, S., & North, S. (2007). Negotiating digital literacy practices across school and home: Case studies of young people in Australia. Language and Education 21 (3), 247 263. https://doi.org/10.2167/le750.0 Burnett, C., & Myers, J. (2006). Observing children writing on screen: Explor ing the process of multi modal composition. Language and Literacy 8 (2), 1 30. Bush, M., Ryan, M., & Rose, S. (2011). Number of instructional days/hours in the school year Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from www.ecs.org Carlone, H. B., Kimmel, S., & Tschida, C. (2010). A rural math, science, and technology elementary school tangled up in global networks of practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education 5 (2), 447 476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422 009 9233 2 Carr, P. J., & Kefalas, M. J. (2009). Hollowing out the middle: The rural brain drain and what it means for America Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Carr, P. J., Lichter, D. T., & Kefalas, M. J. (2013). Can immigration save small town America? Ithaca, New York: Cornell Univer sity. Celano, D., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). Roadblocks on the information highway. Educational Leadership 68 (3), 50 53. of the iPod Touch in the classroom. Prof essional Development in Education 39 (2), 201 221. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.749802 Clark, L. S., Demont Crit ical Studies in Media Communication 22 (5), 409 426. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393180500342985 Cohen, D. T., Hatchard, G. W., & Wilson, S. G. (2015). Population trends in incorporated places: 2000 to 2013 Current population reports Washington, DC: U.S. D epartment of Commerce. Coleman, L. O., Gibson, P., Cotten, S. R., Howell Moroney, M., & Stringer, K. (2016). Integrating computing across the curriculum: The impact of internal barriers and training intensity on computer integration in the elementary schoo l classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research 54 (2), 275 294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115616645 Combes, B. (2009). Generation Y: Are they really digital natives or more like digital refugees? Synergy 7 (1), 31 40. https://doi.org/https://d oi.org/10.1177/1329878X0009400133

PAGE 361

348 response theory. Educational Theory 46 (4), 395 413. Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and hand written compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology 77 (2), 479 492. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X116768 Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordance risks of information and communic ation technologies? Research in Learning Technology 12 (2). Council of Economic Advisers. (2015). Mapping the digital divide. Council of Economic Advisers Issue Brief 1 10. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/wh_digital_divide_iss ue_brief.pdf Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers a nd machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920 New York: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educationa l Research Journal 38 (4), 813 834. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004813 Curtis, A. M., Wells, T. M., Higbee, T., & Lowry, P. B. (2008). An overview and tutorial of the repertory grid technique in information systems research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 23 (3), 37 62. Davies, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning 55 (5), 45 52. https://do i.org/10.1007/s11528 011 0527 3 Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in schools. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 841 853 ). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 1 4614 3185 5 Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G., & Sammons, P. (2006). The personal and professional selves of teachers: Stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal 32 (4), 601 616 https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600775316 Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn 51 76.

PAGE 362

349 Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Pugsley, L. (2010). The concept smacks of magic: Fighting familiarity today. Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (1), 3 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.002 Denzin, N. (1970). The research act in sociology London: Butterworth. Denzin, N. (1989). Interpretive biography London: Sage. Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher 38 (3), 181 199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140 Di as, L. B. (2001). Applications of a best practice study: Implications for technology integration in the elementary classroom. In J. Price, D. Willis, N. Davis, & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Intern ational Conference 2008 (pp. 902 907). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Dolan, J. E. (2016). Splicing the divide: A review of research on the evolving digital divide among K 12 students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 48 (1), 16 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1103147 Dotterer, G., Hedges, A., & Parker, H. (2016). Fostering digital citizenship in the classroom. Education Digest 82 (3), 58 63. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org /login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =ehh&AN=118249106&site=eds live&scope=site home. Journal of Educational Enquiry 3 (2), 21 34. Retr ieved from http://www.education.unisa.edu.au/JEE/Papers/JEEVol3No2/Paper2.pdf Easterby Smith, M. (1980). The design, analysis and interpretation of repertory grids. International Journal of Man Machine Studies 13 3 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020 7373( 80)80032 0 ECDL Foundation. (2014). develop their digital skills (Vol. 36). Dublin: ECDL Foundation. Eisenberg, M. B. (2008). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Journal of Library & Information Technology 28 (2), 39 47. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 363

350 Eppley, K. (2009). Rural schools and the highly qualified teacher pro vision of No Child Left Behind: A critical policy analysis. Journal of Research in Rural Education 24 (4), 1 11. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.mtsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =eue&AN=37178013&site=eds live&scope=sit e Anthropology and Education Quarterly 15 (1), 51 66. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1984.15.1.05x1472p Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed. ), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119 161). New York: Macmillan. Erickson, F. (2012). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science educat ion (pp. 1451 1469). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first and second order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development 47 ( 4), 47 61. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development 53 (4), 25 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683 Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit Leftwich A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 42 (3), 255 284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551 Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education 59 (2), 423 435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 Eshet Alkalai. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 13 (1), 93 106. Esteban Guitart, M. (2012). Towards a multimethodological approach to identification of funds of identity, small stories and mast er narratives. Narrative Inquiry 22 (1), 173 180. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.22.1.12est Esteban Guitart, M., & Moll, L. C. (2014). Lived experience, funds of identity and education. Culture & Psychology 20 (1), 70 81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X135159 40 Journal of Educational Administration 49 (3), 256 275. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111129055 Falcone, D. N., Wells, L. E., & Weisheit, R. A. (2002). The small town police department. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 25 (2), 371 384. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510210429419

PAGE 364

351 Fink, J. L. W. (2017). Are you ready to platoon? Scholastic Teacher 40 42. Fitzpatrick, G., & Stringer, M. (2007). Exploring technology influences between home, work, school: Implications for managing ubiquitous technologies in the home. In A. Venkatesh, T. Gonsalves, A. Monk, & K. Buckner (Eds.), Home informatics and tele matics: ICT for the next billion (pp. 235 249). Boston: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 0 387 73697 6_18 Flora, C. B., Flora, J. L., & Gasteyer, S. (2016). Rural communities: Legacy and change Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Forsey, M. (2008). Ethnogra phic interviewing: From conversation to published text. In G. Walford (Ed.), How to do educational ethnography (pp. 57 75). London: Tuftnell Press. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 15 (2), 267 293. Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister, D. (2004). A manual for repertory grid technique (2nd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Fromm, M. (2004). Introduction to the repertory grid interview New York: W axmann Verlag. Fulkert, E. (2015). Ipad vs Chromebook in the classroom is only part of the debate. Retrieved March 30, 2017, from https://www.campussuite.com/ipad vs chromebook in classroom is only part of the debate/ Gagnon, D. J., & Mattingly, M. J. (201 5). State policy responses to ensuring excellent educators in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education 30 (13), 1 14. Geverdt, D. E. (2015). Education demographic and geographic estimates program (EDGE): 016 012) Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch Education Week p. 1. Gibb, S., & Johnson, R. (2015). Growth in small town America Washington, DC: Unites States Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random samplings/2015/05/growth in small town america.html Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception New York, NY: Psychology Pres s. Gilakjani, A. P., Leong, L. constructivism. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science 4 49 63. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2013.04.07

PAGE 365

352 Glander, M. (2016). Selected st atistics from the public elementary and secondary education universe: School year 2014 15 Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. Goffin, K., Lemke, F., & Koners, U. (2010). Repertory grid tec hnique. In Identifying Hidden Needs (pp. 125 152). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Goh, D., & Kale, U. (2015). The urban rural gap: Project based learning with Web 2.0 among West Virginian teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 1 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1051490 Gonzlez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goolsbee, A., & Klenow, P. J. (2002). Evidence on learning and network externalities in the diffusion of home computers. The Journal of Law and Economics 45 (2), 317 343. https://doi.org/10.1086/344399 Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the c lassroom. Delta Pi Epsilon L (2), 63 76. Graham, L. (2008). Teachers are digikids too: The digital histories and digital lives of young teachers in English primary schools. Literacy 42 (1), 10 18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467 9345.2008.00476.x Granger, C ., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R., & Wideman, H. (2002). Factors Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18 (4), 480 488. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266 4909.2002.002 59.doc.x connect learning between home and school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27 (4), 292 302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365 2729.2011.00433.x Green, J ., & Bloome, D. (2004). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: A situated perspective. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 181 202). New York: Macm illan Publishers. Greenough, R., & Nelson, S. R. (2015). Recognizing the variety of rural schools. Peabody Journal of Education 90 (2), 322 332. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1022393 Technology, Pedagogy and Education 23 (4), 439 454. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.813406

PAGE 366

353 Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology 29 (2), 75 91. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.146.3642.347 Gutierrez, K. D. (2002). Studying cultural practices in urban lea rning communities. Human Development 45 (4), 312 321. Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher 32 (5), 19 25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032005019 Hamilton, B. (2007). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Hamilton, B. (2015). Integrating technology in the classroom: Tools to meet the needs of every student Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: Problems and prospects. Ethnography and Education 1 (1), 3 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457820500512697 Hammond, M. (2010). What is an affordance and can it help us und erstand the use of ICT in education? Education and Information Technologies 15 (3), 205 217. Retrieved from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/34602/1/WRAP_Hammond_9870626 ie 030511 hammondaffordancejuly09.pdf Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2006 ). Within and beyond communities of practice: Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of Management Studies 43 (3), 641 653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467 6486.2006.00605.x Hardr, P. L., Sullivan, D. W., & Crowson, H. M. (2009). Student characteristics and motivation in rural high schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education 24 (16), 1 19. Hargittai, E., Fullerton, L., Menchen Trevino, E., & Thomas, K. Y. (2010). Trust online: Young nt. International Journal of Communication 4 468 494. https://doi.org/1932 8036/20100468 knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum based technology integrat ion reframed. Journal of Research of Technology in Education 41 (4), 393 416. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hatten, S. H. (2012). iPod implementation in the elementary grades. Learning and Leading with Technology 39 (7), 30 31.

PAGE 367

354 Hawley, L. R., Koziol, N. A., Bovaird, J. A., McCormick, C. M., Welch, G. W., Arthur, A. M., & Bash, K. L. (2016). Defining and describing rural: Implications for rural special education resear ch and policy. Rural Special Education Quarterly 35 (3), 3 11. Heafner, T. L., & Fitchett, P. G. (2012). Tipping the scales: National trends of declining social studies instructional time in elementary schools. The Journal of Social Studies Research 36 (2) 190 215. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research Los Angeles: Sage. Hedegaard, M., Aronsson, K., Hojholt, C., & Ulvik, O. S. (2012). Introduction. In M. Hedegaard, K. Aronsson, C. Hojholt, & O. S. Ulvik (Eds.), Childre n, childhood, and everyday life: (pp. vii xiii). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Heuertz, L., Gordon, A. C., & Gordon, M. T. (2003). The impact of public access computing on rural and small town libraries. Rural Libraries 23 (1), 51 79. Hoffman, M. E., & Vance, D. R. (2005). Computer literacy: What students know and from whom they learned it. Association for Computing Machinery SIGCSE Bulletin 37 (1), 356 360. https://doi.org/10.1145/1047124.1047467 Hogg, L. (2011). Funds of knowledge: An investigation of coherence within the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (3), 666 677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.005 pectives on Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27 (4), 347 360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365 2729.2011.00431.x Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Zero to eight: Young children and their internet use LSE, London: EU Kids Online. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479 5868 10 137 Horst, H. A., Herr Stephenson, B., & Robinson, L. (2010). Media ecologies. In M. Ito, S. Baumer, M. Bittanti, D. Boyd, B. Herr Step Hanging out, messing around and geeking around: Kids living and learning with new media (pp. 29 78). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467 8535.2010.01154_5.x Howley, A., Wood, L., & Hough, B. (201 integration. Journal of Research in Rural Education 26 (9), 1 13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240802207650 Howley, C. B., Howley, A., & Yahn, J. (2014). Motives for dissertation research at the intersection between rural education and curriculum and instruction. Journal of Research in Rural Education 29 (5), 1 12. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.mtsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =eue&AN=98509980&site=eds live&scope=site

PAGE 368

355 Howley, C. B., Theobald, P., & Howley, A. (2005). What rural education research is of most worth? A reply to Arnold, Newman, Gaddy, and Dean. Journal of Research in Rural Education 20 (18), 1 6. Hsi, S. (2007). Conceptualizing learning from the everyday ac tivities of digital kids. International Journal of Science Education 29 (12), 1509 1529. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701494076 Hsu, P. S. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology integration: A case study. TechTrends 60 (1), 30 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528 015 0014 3 Hui, B., & Campbell, R. (2018). Discrepancy between learning and practicing digital citizenship. Journal of Academic Ethics Inan, F. A., Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, D. (2010). Pattern of c lassroom activities applications. Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (3), 540 546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.017 International Society for Technology in Education. (2012). Profiles of technology (ICT) literate students NETS for Students Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education. International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from iste.org/standards Jackson, R. (2007). Cognitive development: The missing link in teaching information literacy skills. Reference & User Services Quarterly 46 (4), 28 32. Jacob, E. (1998). Clarifying qualitative research: A focus on traditions. Educational Researcher 17 (1), 16 24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017001016 Jankowicz, D. (2004). The easy guide to repertory grids Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=trueunddb=psyhundAN=2006 01779 001undsite=ehost live Jimerson, L. (2005). Placism in NCLB How rural children are left behind. Equity & Excellence in Education 38 (3), 211 219. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568059 1002588 Johnson, J., Showalter, D., Klein, R., & Lester, C. (2014). Why rural matters 2013 2014: The condition of rural education in the 50 states Washington, DC: The Rural School and Community Trust. Retrieved from http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id =3181 Jones, L. M., & Mitchell, K. J. (2016). Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship. New Media and Society 18 (9), 2063 2079. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815577797

PAGE 369

356 Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Bell, S. M. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Upda te from the early childhood longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research 100 (1), 52 60. Karchmer Klein, R., & Shinas, V. H. (2012). Guiding principles for supporting new literacies in your classroom. Reading Teacher 65 (5), 288 293. https://doi .org/10.1002/TRTR.01044 Katz, V., & Gonzalez, C. (2016). Community variation in low technology adoption and integration. American Behavioral Scientist 60 (1), 59 80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215601712 Kena, G., Musu Gillette, E. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015 ). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1037/e492172006 019 Kent school ICT use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20 (6), 440 455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365 2729.2004.00102.x Kiefer, M., Schuler, S., Mayer, C., Trumpp, N. M., H ille, K., & Sachse, S. (2015). Handwriting or typewriting? The influence of pen or keyboard based writing training on reading and writing performance in preschool children. Advances in Cognitive Psychology 11 (4), 136 146. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp 0178 7 Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education 29 (1), 76 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005 Kim, S. H., & Bagaka, J. (2005). The digital divid multilevel analysis of the role of teacher practices and classroom characteristics. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 5 (3/4), 318 329. King, J. E. (2011). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An action agenda for higher education. State Higher Education Executive Officers (December 2010), 8. Retrieved from http://131.211.208.19/login?auth=eng&url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CS C=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=eric3&AN=ED540255 Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK in Action: Unpacking the contextual (TPACK). Computers and Education 78 20 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2 014.04.022 Koziol, N. A., Arthur, A. M., Hawley, L. R., Bovaird, J. A., Bash, K. L., McCormick, C., & Welch, G. W. (2015). Identifying, analyzing, and communicating rural: A quantitative perspective. Journal of Research in Rural Education 30 (4), 1 14.

PAGE 370

357 Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2016). The web as an information resource in K 12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research 75 (3), 285 328. Labbo, L. D., Place, K., & Soares L. (2010). Fresh perspectives on new literacies and technology integration. Voices From the Middle 17 (3), 9 18. Ladbrook, J., & Probert, E. (2011). Information skills and critical literacy: Where are our digikids at with online searching and are their teachers helping? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 27 (1), 105 121. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.986 LaRose, R., Gre gg, J. L., Strover, S., Straubhaar, J., & Carpenter, S. (2007). Closing the rural broadband gap: Promoting adoption of the Internet in rural America. Telecommunications Policy 31 (6 7), 359 373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2007.04.004 Lave, J., & Weng er, E. (2002). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. In R. Harrison, F. Reeve, A. Hanson, & J. Clarke (Eds.), Supporting lifelong learning: Perspectives on learning (Vol. 1, pp. 111 126). New York: Routledge. LaVenia, M., Cohen Vo gel, L., & Lang, L. B. (2015). The Common Core State Standards initiative: An event history analysis of state adoption. American Journal of Education 121 (2), 145 182. https://doi.org/10.1086/679389 LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (2013). Analysis and i nterpretation of ethnographic data: A mixed methods approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Altamira. Lei, J. (2014). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 25 (3), 37 41. https://doi.org /10.1080/10402454.2009.10784615 Lichter, D. T., Parisi, D., Taquino, M. C., & Grice, S. M. (2010). Residential segregation in new Hispanic destinations: Cities, suburbs, and rural communities compared. Social Science Research 39 (2), 215 230. https://doi.o rg/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.08.006 of computer mediated classroom lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (5), 807 828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467 8535.2007.00774.x Liu, A. Q., & Besser, T. L. (2003). Social capital and participation in community improvement activities by elderly residents in small towns and rural communities. Rural Sociology 68 (3), 343 365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549 0831. 2003.tb00141.x Liu, S. H. (2012). Teacher professional development for technology integration in a primary school learning community. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 22 (1), 37 54. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.719398

PAGE 371

358 Livingstone, S. (2008). Int opportunities. In T. McPherson (Ed.), Digital Youth, Innovation and the Unexpected (The John D, pp. 101 122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/dmal.9780262633598.101 Loyd, S., Hardin g Dekam, J., & Hamilton, B. (2015a). Hazards to the doctoral journey: Guidance for new doctoral students. Journal of Education Research and Innovation 4 (1), 1 17. Loyd, S., Harding Dekam, J., & Hamilton, B. (2015b). The power of multicultural mathematics picturebooks. Colorado Reading Journal 25 5 10. Lu, R., & Overbaugh, R. C. (2009). School environment and technology implementation in K 12 classrooms. Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplin ary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research 26 (2), 89 106. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380560902906096 MacTavish, K. A., & Salamon, S. (2006). Pathways of youth development in a rural trailer park. Family Relations 55 (2), 163 174. https://doi.org /10.1111/j.1741 3729.2006.00367.x Marsh, J., Brooks, G., Hughes, J., Ritchie, L., Roberts, S., & Wright, K. (2005). Digital Sheffield: BBC Worldwide and Esme Fairbairn Founda tion. Mattingly, M. J., Johnson, K. M., & Schaefer, A. (2011). More poor kids in more poor places Curham, NH: Casey Institute. Retrieved from http://carseyinstitute.unh.edu/CarseySearch/search.php?id=176 McGrail, E. (2005). Teachers, technology, and chang Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 13 (1), 5 24. McLeod, S. A. (2015). Jean Piaget. Retrieved November 11, 2017, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget Meeker, M. (2015). Internet trends 2015 Glokalde. Re trieved from http://www.kpcb.com/internet trends Melkevik, O., Torsheim, T., Iannotti, R. J., & Wold, B. (2010). Is spending time in screen based sedentary behaviors associated with less physical activity: A cross national investigation. International Jour nal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 7 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479 5868 7 46 Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Metz, M. H. (1983). What can be learned from educational ethnography? Urban Education 17 (4), 391 418.

PAGE 372

359 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miranda, H., & Russell, M. (2011). Predictors of teacher directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A multilevel SEM approach using data from the USEIT study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 43 (4), 301 323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782574 Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technologica l pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record 108 (6), 1017 1054. (2010). Older adults talk technology: T echnology usage and attitudes. Computer Human Behavior 26 (6), 1710 1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.020.Older Moll, L. C. (2009). Reflection and possibilities. In N. Gonzlez, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms (pp. 275 287). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzlez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice 31 (2), 132 141. Moll, L. C., & Esteban Guitart, M. (2014). Funds of identity: A new concept based on the funds of knowledge approach. Culture & Psychology 20 (1), 31 48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X13515934 Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1992). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social constructs for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 319 348). New York: Cambridg e University Press. Moll, L. C., Soto Santiago, S. L., & Schwartz, L. (2013). Funds of knowledge in changing communities. In K. Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber, & L. C. Moll (Eds.), International e (pp. 172 183). Maiden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118323342.ch13 Monk, D. H. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children 17 (1), 155 174. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2007.0009 Muelle r, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers and Education 51 (4), 1523 1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2008.02.003 technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Techology for Teacher Education 9 (3), 319 342. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939000020009 6

PAGE 373

360 Murchison, J. (2010). Ethnography essentials: Designing, conducting, and presenting your research San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Murcia, K. (2014). Interactive and multimodal pedagogy: A case study of how teachers and students use interactive whi teboard technology in primary science. Australian Journal of Education 58 (1), 74 88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944113517834 National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine. (2016). Rationalizing rural area classifications for the economic researc h service (R. G.S. Wunderlich, Ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21843 Nelson, L., & Hiemstra, N. (2008). Latino immigrants and the renegotiation of place and belonging in small town America. Social & Cultural Ge ography 9 (3), 319 342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360801990538 Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2012). Giving our children a fighting chance: Poverty, literacy, and the development of information capital New York: Teachers College Press. Nielsen, J. (2015) A night divided New York, NY: Scholastic. Nigram, H., & Collier, A. (2010). Youth safety on a living internet: Report of the online safety and technology working group Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2010/youth safety living internetng+in ternet+:#1 perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives 9 (48), 1 35. Okojie, M. C., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie Boulder, T. C. (2005). The pedagogy of technology integration. The Journal of Technology Studies 32 66 72. Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Effective classroom management: Teacher preparation and professional develop ment Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://tqcenter.learningpt.org/topics/effectiveClassroomManagement.pdf Freq uency of use for younger and older adults. Aging International 36 (1), 123 145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126 010 9077 9.Diffusion technologies: An up close, longitudinal analysis. Research in Learning Technology 22 1 15. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.21354 Ottenbreit Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers and Education 55 (3), 1321 1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002

PAGE 374

361 Palinscar, A. S., & Brown A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1 (2), 117 175. Palmer, N. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2012). Strengths and silences: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in rural and small town schools New York, NY: GLSEN. Pennington, R., Horn, C., & Berrong, A. (2009). An evaluation of the differences between big city and small town special education services for students with low incidence disabilities in Kentucky. Rural Special Education Quarterly 28 (4), 3 9. Pittman, T., & Gaines, T. (2015). Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade classrooms in a Florida school district. Educational Technology Research and Devel opment 63 (4), 539 554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423 015 9391 8 Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2008). Young children learning with technology at home. Cambridge Journal of Education 38 (3), 303 319. Plucker, J. A., Cierniak, K., & Chamberlin, M. (2012). The four day school week: Nine years later Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy. Retrieved from http://ceep.indiana.edu Polikoff, M. S., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of student achievement with state content standards? American Educational Research Journal 48 (4), 965 995. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410684 Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meani ng: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 (2), 137 145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022 0167.52.2.137 Polly, D. (2011). Examining how the enactment of TPACK varies across grade levels in mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 30 (1), 37 59. Computers in the Schools 31 (4), 271 292. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2014.969079 Polly, D., & Hannafin, M J. (2011). Examining how learner centered professional development The Journal of Educational Research 104 (2), 120 130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003636737 Poole, A. (2017). Funds of knowledge 2 .0: Towards digital funds of identity. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.02.002 Probert, E. (2009). Information literacy skills: Teacher understandings and practice. Computers and Education 53 (1), 24 33. https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.018

PAGE 375

362 Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teachers and technology Pusey, P., & Sadera, W. (2012). Cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity: Preservice teacher knowledge, preparedness, and the need for teacher education to make a difference. Journal of Digit al Learning in Teacher Education 28 (2), 82 88. https://doi.org/1 July 2014 instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38 (4), 409 4 24. Ratcliffe, M., Burd, C., Holder, K., & Fields, A. (2016). Defining rural at the U.S. Census Bureau (ACSGEO 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system New York, NY: Basic Books. Re trieved from http://lcoastpress.metapress.com/index/N783171W87640641.pdf Redding, S., & Walberg, H. J. (2012). Promoting learning in rural schools Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED528634 Reed, P., Vi le, R., Osborne, L. A., Romano, M., & Truzoli, R. (2015). Problematic internet usage and immune function. PLoS ONE 10 (8), 1 16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134538 Reeves, S., Kuper, A., & Hodges, B. D. (2008). Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. British Medical Journal 337 512 514. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.alO20 Reinhart, J. M., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. M. (2011). K 12 teachers: Technology use and the second level digital divide. Journal of Instructional Psychology 38 (3 4), 1 81 194. location preferences and the implications for staffing schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 34 (2), 127 145. https://doi.org/10.3102/016237371142 0864 Ribble, M. S., & Bailey, G. D. (2004). Digital citizenship: Focus questions for implementation. Learning and Leading with Technology 32 (2), 12 15. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20906 Ritland, V., & Eighmy, M. (2012). Multiage instruction: An outdated s trategy, or a timeless best practice. The European Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (4), 169 176. Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2013). Differences in student information and communication literacy based on socio economic status, ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a digital divide in Florida. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 45 (4), 291 307.

PAGE 376

363 Rogoff, B., Moore, L. C., Correa Chvez, M., & Dexter, A. L. (2015). Children develop cultural repertoires through engaging in everyday routines and practices. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 472 498). New York: Guilford Press. Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Arauz, R. M., Correa Chavez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology 54 175 203. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145118 Rosenblatt, L. M. (1988). Writing and reading: The transactional theory Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York: Mode rn Language Association. Ruggiero, D., & Mong, C. J. (2015). The teacher technology integration experience: Practice and reflection in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 14 161 178. Savina, E., Mills, J. L., Atwood, K., & Cha, J. (2017). Digital media and youth: A primer for school psychologists. Contemporary School Psychology 21 (1), 80 91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688 017 0119 0 Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy 18 (1), 253 286. https://doi.o rg/10.1177/0895904803260042 Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student achievement. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Asse ssment 9 (4), 6 10. Sheingold, K., Kane, J., Endreweit, M., & Billings, K. (1981). Study of issues related to implementation of computer technology in schools Washington, DC: National Institute of Education (DHEW). Shelby Caffey, C., bda, E., & Jenkins, use of an innovative literacy practice. Reading Teacher 68 (3), 191 199. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1273 Sherwood, T. (2001). Where has all the rural gone? Rural education research and current fed eral reform (Vol. 16). Washington, DC: Rural School and Community Trust. Retrieved from papers3://publication/uuid/702C898A 8505 48B3 B7D0 BC080BD71033 schools. T echnology, Pedagogy and Education 24 (4), 461 476. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.915229

PAGE 377

364 Silverstein, S. (2011). Everything on it Spinelli, J. (1990). Maniac Magee New York, NY: Little, Brown and Compa ny. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation Boston: Thomson Learning. Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher 7 (2), 5 8. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. St ate Education Association. (2018). State educators spend out of pocket State Education Association. Sterling, S. (2016). 4 tips to streamline device troubleshooting [Blog]. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from http://blog.edmentum.com/classroom it 4 tips streamline device troubleshooting Stevenson, N. C., & Just, C. (2014). In early education, why teach handwriting before keyboarding? Early Childhood Education Journal 42 (1), 49 56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1064 3 012 0565 2 Subero, D., Vila, I., & Esteban Guitart, M. (2015). Some contemporary forms of the funds of knowledge approach. Developing culturally responsive pedagogy for social justice. International Journal of Educational Psychology 4 (1), 33 53. https:/ /doi.org/10.4471/ijep.2015.02 Sundeen, T. H., & Sundeen, D. M. (2013). Instructional technology for rural schools: Access and acquisition. Rural Special Education Quarterly 32 (2), 8 14. Retrieved from http://libproxy.uwyo.edu/login/?url=http://search.proq uest.com/docview/1420524015?acco untid=14793 Transforming teaching and learning: Embedding ICT into everyday classroom practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Lea rning 20 (6), 413 425. Swanson, J. A., & Walker, E. (2015). Academic versus non academic emerging adult college student technology use. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 20 (2), 147 158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758 015 9258 4 Takyi, E. (2015). The chal lenge of involvement and detachment in participant observation. The Qualitative Report 20 (6), 864 872. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/6/wiorkowski8.pdf Tan, E., Barton, A. C., Turner, E., & Gutirrez, M. V. (2012). Empowering science and mathematics education in urban schools Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Tan, T. (2011). Educating digital citizens. Leadership 41 (1), 30 32.

PAGE 378

365 Retrieved March 23, 20 17, from http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/03/googles chromebooks make up half of us classroom devices.html Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and readin g (pp. 173 206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443991580102 Thomas, B. (2010). Repertory grid: a missing UX technique? Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/bthomas/rep grid the missing ux technique Tolbert, C. M., Irwin, M. D., Lyson, T. A., & Nucci, A. R. (2001). Civic community in small town America: How civic welfare is influenced by local capitalism and civic engagement Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). Exploring the link between Computers in Human Behavior 24 (6), 2541 2553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.020 Torkildsen, J. von K., Mor ken, F., Helland, W. A., & Helland, T. (2016). The dynamics of narrative writing in primary grade children: Writing process factors predict story quality. Reading and Writing 29 (3), 529 554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145 015 9618 4 Triggs, P., & John, P. (2004). From transaction to transformation: Information and communication technology, professional development and the formation of communities of practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20 426 439. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta l/recordDetail?accno=EJ686099 Tsai, H. International Education Studies 8 (6), 151 161. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n6p151 Tully, C. J. (2003). Growing up in technological worlds: How modern technologies shape the everyday lives of young people. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 23 (6), 444 456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467603260812 U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Mea suring America: Our changing landscape Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Internet access in U. S. public schools and classrooms: 1994 2003 (NCES 2002 ). Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Educ ation National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2016). Common core of data. Retrieved July 14, 2016, from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/ Us Domnech, J. L., & Nescolarde Selva, J. (2016). What are belief systems? Foundations of Science 21 ( 1), 147 152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699 015 9409 z

PAGE 379

366 Valcke, M., De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., & Schellens, T. (2011). Long term study of safe internet use of young children. Computers and Education 57 (1), 1292 1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011 .01.010 and unsafe use of the internet at home and at school: An exploratory study. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (6), 2838 2850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb .2006.05.008 Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high stakes accountability American Educational Research Journal (Vol. 44). https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306859 van Broekhuizen, L. (2016). The paradox of classro om technology: Despite proliferation and access, students not using technology for learning Retrieved from http://www.advanc ed.org/sites/default/files/AdvancED_eleot_Classroom_Tech_Report.pdf Van Leeuwen, C. A., & Gabriel, M. A. (2007). Beginning to writ e with word processing: Integrating writing process and technology in a primary classroom. Reading Teacher 60 (5), 420 429. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.60.5.2 studi es instruction in elementary classrooms in indiana1. Theory and Research in Social Education 33 (3), 376 403. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2005.10473287 Vatanartiran, S., & Karadeniz, S. (2015). A needs analysis for technology integration plan: Challen ges and needs of teachers. Contemporary Educational Technology 6 (3), 206 220. Vlez Ibez, C. G. (1988). Networks of exchange among Mexicans in the U. S. and Mexico: Local level mediating responses to national and international transformations. Urban Ant hropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 17 (1), 27 51. Vlez Ibez, C. G., & Greenberg, J. B. (2005). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge. In N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 47 69). New York: Routlegde. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wake, D. G. (2011). Exploring rural contexts with digital storytelling. Rural Educator 33 (3), 23 36. Walford, G. (2009). For ethnography. Ethnography and Education 4 (3), 271 282. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200100189102

PAGE 380

367 Walraven, A., Brand gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2008). Information problem solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (3), 623 648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.030 Wasley, P. A., Hampel, R. L., & Clark, R. W. (1997). Kids and school reform San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Wegmann, E., Stodt, B., & Brand, M. (2015). Addictive use of social networking sites can be explained by the interaction of internet use expectancies, internet literacy, and psychopatholog ical symptoms. Journal of Behavioral Addictions 4 (3), 155 164. Weintraub, N., Gilmour Grill, N., & Weiss, P. L. (2010). Relationship between handwriting and keyboarding performance among slow and fast adult keyboarders. Journal of Occupational Therapy 64 123 132. school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal 39 (1), 165 205. Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing Lanham, MD: Altamira. Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ions: Barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information 5 (2), 183 206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636310500186214 Wood, L., & Howley, A. (2012). Dividing at an early age: The hidden digital divide in Ohio el ementary schools. Learning, Media and Technology 37 (1), 20 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.567991 Woods, M. (2015). Conceptualizing rural areas in metropolitan society: A rural view. In Workshop on Rationalizing Rural Area Classifications (pp. 1 34). Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CNSTAT/DBASSE_160632 Wuthnow, R. (2013). Small town America: Finding community, shaping the future Princeton, NJ: Pri nceton University Press. Yardi, S., & Bruckman, A. (2012). Income, race, and class: Exploring socioeconomic differences in family technology use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3041 3050). Austin, TX: ACM https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208716 Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

PAGE 381

368 APPENDIX A TEACHER CONSENT FORM

PAGE 382

369

PAGE 383

370

PAGE 384

371 APPENDIX B ADULT CONSENT FORM

PAGE 385

372

PAGE 386

373

PAGE 387

374 APPENDIX C PARENT CONSENT FOR MINOR CHILD

PAGE 388

375

PAGE 389

376

PAGE 390

377 APPENDIX D PARENT CONSENT FORM IN SPANISH

PAGE 391

378

PAGE 392

379

PAGE 393

380 APPENDIX E STUDENT ASSENT FORM

PAGE 394

381 APPENDIX F REPERTORY GRID FORM

PAGE 395

382 APPENDIX G INVENTORY INTERVIEW FOR TEACHERS Sample Technology Inventory Interview Questions for Teachers (These represent the types of questions to be asked during the technology inventory interviews for teachers) cameras, smartphones, and other devices. Computer use Tell me about the first time you reme mber using a computer or computer like device. Where were you? Who was with you? What did you do? Can you tell me about your first home computer? Who bought it? What level of access did you have? Was it internet connected? Tell me about how you learned to use computers. Where did you learn? From whom? Tell me about using computers in school? Was computer use a regular practice in your schooling? What did you do with the computers? Where were you? With whom? How do you use computers and computer like devices at home now? At school? Give me a sense of how you learn new computer skills today. Does someone teach you? students use them? How do you and your students engage with c omputers in the school? Digital devices Tell me about your experiences at home or in the community with other digital devices. What are your first memories of those? Who introduced you to new devices? How did you learn to use them? What devices do you use regularly outside of school? How do you use them? Are any of the digital devices you use at home also used at school? How? By you alone or by students as well? What devices do you or the students use at school that you do not have at home? How are they u sed? Pedagogy Tell me your beliefs about how and when technologies should be used in your classroom. When you plan to use a technology device for instructing students, what guides your thinking? If you are going to ask students to use technology, what guides your thinking? Tell me about one or two technology based experiences in your classroom that you consider successful. Have you ever assigned a project or task for students for which you had n o experience? If so, how did it go?

PAGE 396

383 another device in a new way. If so, what happened? T echnology support District support for technology differs widely from place to place. How would you Tell me about the level of technology support in the school. port. That could be parental support or support from other organizations. General questions Do you consider yourself technology savvy? On a scale of 1 10, with 10 being highly skilled, where would you place yourself in comparison to other adults in the school? In every school and community, there are advantages and disadvantages related to any topic. What are the technology advantages you have as a teacher in a rural (small town) school? What constraints do you experience in using technology because you are in a rural (small town) school?

PAGE 397

384 APPENDIX H INVENTORY INTERVIEW FOR STUDENTS Sample Technology Inventory Interview Questions for Students (These represent the types of questions to be asked during the technology inventory interviews for students) By digital technology, I mean computers, smartphones, digital cameras, iPods, and so forth. Co mputer use at home: 1. Tell me what you remember about the first time you used a digital technology device. What was it? What were you doing? 2. Can you tell me about the first time you remember using a computer? Where were you? What did you do? Who was there? 3. Do you have access to a computer at home? How often do you use it? (If not, how do you get access to a computer when you need one?) What types of things do you use a computer for? How did you learn to use it? From whom? Computer use at school 4. What about c omputers at school? Do you use them? Who teaches you skills? What do you do on computers? With whom? 5. What is the difference between how you use a computer at home and how you use a computer school? Digital tech at home 6. What other digital technologies do y ou use outside of school? Where do you use them? With whom? To do what? 7. Have you taken classes or been involved in a technology club? 8. somewhere like that? Digital tech at school 9. What technologies do you use at school? When do you use them? Who decides? Who taught you how to work with them? Technology support 10. Who do you go to when you have a computer or technology problem? 11. Who comes to you for help? 12. Is there a technology know it all in your class? Tell me why you think that. 13. Is there a teacher who is particularly technology savvy? Why do you think that?