Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Situated technology infusion in a school district: how systems and structures mediate the process

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores educational technology infusion in the U.S. school district context. We used a complex systems perspective to understand the interactions between the classroom (micro), building (meso), and organization (macro) system levels of a school district, offering insight into how and why certain permutations of tools, content, and practices are effective and impactful. We used comparative case study methods to understand (a) patterns in teachers’ implementation of digital technologies in early elementary classrooms and (b) the organizational system that influences those patterns in one small school district serving a mixed suburban/rural community. Data were collected over 12 months, and included: elementary classroom observations, interviews with principals and district leaders, and student performance data. Our findings trace activities within and connections across levels of a district organization undergoing technology infusion. We found that district administration established human-centered leadership practices to facilitate instructional technology integration and principals maintained this leadership ethos in variable ways. Teachers leveraged technology for personalization and collaborative learning, and used robust classroom management routines to anchor complex instruction with young children. The findings highlight key considerations for system leaders, technologists, and policymakers; in particular, establishing a professional culture that offers widespread support for instructional experimentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that three co-authors were also interviewees.

  2. In addition to these explicit district policy foci, leaders and educators in the district had been engaged in a variety of other innovative learning practices using MakerSpace and FabLab facilities and other innovative resources, but these were beyond the scope of this study.

  3. All school names are pseudonyms.

References

  • Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, K., Savage, R., Sanghera-Sidhu, S., Wood, E., Gottardo, A., & Chen, V. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of technology use in classrooms: A tertiary meta-analysis. Computers and Education, 78, 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergström, P., Mårell-Olsson, E., & Jahnke, I. (2019). Variations of symbolic power and control in the one-to-one computing classroom: Swedish teachers’ enacted didactical design decisions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(1), 38–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernacki, M. L., Greene, M. J., & Lobczowski, N. G. (2021). A systematic review of research on personalized learning: Personalized by whom, to what, how, and for what purpose(s)? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09615-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777–1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., Mata, W. S., & Choi, L. (2013). The embeddedness of teachers’ social networks: Evidence from a study of mathematics reform. Sociology of Education, 86(4), 311–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, A. J., Finnigan, K. S., Jordan, S., Moolenaar, N. M., & Che, J. (2014). Misalignment and perverse incentives: Examining the politics of district leaders as brokers in the use of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 145–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813513149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escuenta, M., Quan, V., Nickow, A. J., & Oreopoulos, P. (2017). Education technology: An evidence-based review. NBER Working Paper No. 23744. 1–102.

  • Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (2016). Open coding descriptions. Grounded Theory Review, 15(2), 108–110.

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory. Sociology the Journal of the British Sociological Association, 12(1), 27–49.

  • Gustafsson, U. (2021). Taking a step back for a leap forward: Policy formation for the digitalisation of schools from the views of Swedish national policymakers. Education Inquiry, 12(4), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1917487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M., Russell, J. L., Takahashi, S., & Park, S. (2015). Using improvement science to better support beginning teachers: The case of the building a teaching effectiveness network. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 494–508.

  • Hannan, M. Q., & Russell, J. L. (2020). Coaching in context: Exploring conditions that shape instructional coaching practice. Teachers College Record, 122(10), 1–40.

  • Holland, J. H. (2014). Signals and boundaries: Building blocks for complex adaptive systems. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, M. I. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iriti, J., Bickel, W., Schunn, C., & Stein, M. K. (2016). Maximizing research and development resources: Identifying and testing “load-bearing conditions” for educational technology innovations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(2), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9409-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahnke, I., Bergström, P., Mårell-Olsson, E., Häll, L., & Kumar, S. (2017). Digital didactical designs as research framework: IPad integration in Nordic schools. Computers & Education, 113, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, A., Boston, M., & Stein, M. K. (2019). Exploring how teachers support students’ mathematical learning in computer-directed learning environments. Information and Learning Science, 121(1–2), 52–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-07-2019-0075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopcha, T. J., Neumann, K. L., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Pitman, E. (2020). Process over product: The next evolution of our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 729–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09735-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A multilevel path analysis model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 795–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9487-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mårell-Olsson, E., & Bergström, P. (2018). Digital transformation in Swedish schools: Principals’ strategic leadership and organisation of tablet-based one-to-one computing initiatives. In Seminar. net: Media, technology and lifelong learning (Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 174–187).

  • Mårell-Olsson, E., Bergström, P., & Jahnke, I. (2019). Is the tablet a teacher or a student tool? Emergent practices in tablet-based classrooms. Emergent practices and material conditions in learning and teaching with technologies, 89-105.

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). The Rand change agent study: Ten years later. In A. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 143–155). State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 645–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M. D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2015). Continued progress: Promising evidence on personalized learning. In RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02739701

  • Pane, J., Steiner, E., Baird, M., Hamilton, L., & Pane, J. (2017). Informing progress: Insights on personalized learning implementation and effects. Informing Progress: Insights on Personalized Learning Implementation and Effects, July. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr2042

  • Pane, J. (2018). Strategies for implementing personalized learning while evidence and resources are underdeveloped. Strategies for Implementing Personalized Learning While Evidence and Resources Are Underdeveloped, October. https://doi.org/10.7249/pe314

  • Powell, R., Cantrell, S. C., & Rightmyer, E. (2013). Teaching and reading all students: An instructional model for closing the gap. Middle School Journal, 44(5), 22–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., & Lin, L. (2020). The research we have is not the research we need. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1991–2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09811-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. W., & Sterrett, W. L. (2018). District technology leadership then and now: A comparative study of district technology leadership from 2001 to 2014. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 589–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18769046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M. (2020). Technology infusion in K-12 classrooms: A retrospective look at three decades of challenges and advancements in research and practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2003–2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09756-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/5959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey, N., & Slavin, R. E. (2020). The US educational response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Best Evidence of Chinese Education, 5(2), 617–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, H., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Wang, C. C. (2019). Trends and development in technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017. Computers and Education, 140, 103599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., Basham, J. D., & Yang, S. (2020). Understanding the implementation of personalized learning: A research synthesis. Educational Research Review, 31, 100339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100339

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work received support from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Maggie Quinn Hannan

  2. Elizabeth Forward School District, 401 Rock Run Road, Elizabeth, PA, 15037, USA

    Keith Konyk, Steven Hartnett & Todd Keruskin

Authors
  1. Maggie Quinn Hannan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keith Konyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven Hartnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Todd Keruskin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maggie Quinn Hannan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from participants in this study in accordance with Institutional Review Board requirements at Carnegie Mellon University.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Methodological details for classroom observations

The primary constructs that shaped the observations were focused on the observer capturing:

  • How technology use is embedded and integrated into teaching practice—is technology use (iPads) blended with other learning methods (pen and paper, discussion, etc.)? Do students have opportunities to collaborate and interact as they use technology? Is technology used to tailor instruction to different student needs?

  • Teachers’ classroom routines—are they supportive? Do students seem comfortable and happy with the flow of the lesson? Do students know what to do and where to go?

  • Teachers’ use of data—are multiple sources of data integrated to form teacher impressions of students’ needs and progress? Are data used to form small groups and shape instructional choices?

  • Teachers’ questioning practice—during direct instruction, do teachers use transactional questioning approaches (such as initiate-response-evaluate, or IRE) or exploratory questioning that encourages deeper thinking? Do students have opportunities to collaborate and interact in response to teacher?

  • Teachers’ framing of knowledge—are multiple solution pathways and multiple forms of knowledge honored and discussed in instruction? Are students encouraged to draw on their own funds of knowledge and work with peers to answer challenging questions?

These guiding questions blend constructs used in past studies of computer-directed learning environments (Kessler et al., 2019) and instruments developed for observing culturally responsive pedagogical practices (Powell et al., 2013). The subquestions for each of these constructs informed the preliminary codes for our first cycle coding, which included these five constructs as well as additional descriptive codes to capture other relevant phenomena present in the data but not accounted for in these five constructs.

Appendix B: Methodological details for qualitative coding

Following the first cycle coding of the data, the coded observations and interviews we grouped into case summaries structured by themes that connected the first cycle codes. These themes were informed by our conceptual framework and solidified by the coded data. The case summary method allowed us to examine the system vertically, across teacher, building leader, and district leader perceptions and practices, and horizontally, across classrooms in different school buildings, providing two different axes of comparison. This multi-leveled system view was essential for exploring the relationship between instructional implementation and system characteristics and describing the complex dynamics of organizational change involved in a district-wide technology infusion initiative.

Appendix C: Technology applications in district ecosystem

The following applications and programs were reported or observed as in use at the district:

  • Twitter

  • Class Dojo

  • Microsoft Outlook

  • Splash Learn

  • Wowzers

  • eSpark

  • Canvas (district learning management system)

  • Nearpod

  • Google Suite: Google Docs, Google Slides, Google Sheets

  • Apple Products: Apple Clips, Apple GarageBand, Apple Pages, Apple Numbers, iMovie, Apple Classroom

  • Microsoft Word, Microsoft Powerpoint, Microsoft Excel

  • NWEA (MAPS Assessments)

  • PowerSchool

  • IXL

  • Badger

  • Letterland

  • Youtube

  • Epic

  • Prodigy

  • Khan Academy

  • Kahoot

  • Pic Collage

  • On-Hand Schools

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hannan, M.Q., Konyk, K., Hartnett, S. et al. Situated technology infusion in a school district: how systems and structures mediate the process. Education Tech Research Dev 72, 819–844 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10297-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10297-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation