peer coaching and technology integration: a qualitative...

Running Head: PEER COACHING AND TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 1

Peer Coaching and Technology Integration:

A Qualitative Case Study of Elementary Teachers' Perceptions and Experiences

Michele Lowe

Kennesaw State University

Author Note

This paper was prepared for EDRS 8900 Applied Field Research

Taught by Dr. Cutts


Introduction & Orientation

Despite increases in internet access and the availability of technology tools in elementary

classrooms in recent years, researchers have identified many barriers that continue to prevent

teachers from integrating technology into their lessons such as beliefs, attitudes, comfort, time,

skills, experience with technology, and the rapidly changing nature of technology (Blackwell,

Lauricella, & Wartella, 2014; Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, & Woods, 1999; Mueller, Wood,

Willoughby, Ross, & Specht, 2008; Parette, Quesenbury, & Blum, 2010; Snyder & Dillow,

2013; Warf, 2013). Students today are digital natives and work more comfortably and efficiently

with technology than previous generations. These students also think and process information

differently, requiring new instructional methods that many of their digital immigrant teachers are

not adequately prepared to deliver (Prensky, 2013; Valek & Sladek, 2012).

Research highlights ways barriers to technology integration can be combatted and some

commonalities in professional learning activities that are effective in promoting teachers’

abilities to integrate technology into classroom activities. Ongoing teacher support, addressing

teacher attitudes, positive hands-on practice with technology to be used in class, integrating

learning into the daily life of the school, a focus on academic content, encouraging professional

learning communities, customizing learning content, and classroom visits have all been shown to

positively impact teachers’ abilities to integrate technology into their classroom activities

(Blackwell et al., 2014; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Hanover Research

2014; Martin et al., 2010; Mueller et al., 2008).

Although the United States government allocated millions of dollars in 2014 for STEM

innovation, which includes technology, the training for teachers is not keeping pace with the

expectations and funding for materials and programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). In

recent years school systems have faced budget cuts along with increased costs that have


prompted most systems to cut funding for professional learning (Suggs, 2014). At the same

time, implementation of Common Core Curriculum that focuses on students’ critical thinking

and problem solving abilities along with new teacher evaluation systems that assess teachers’

abilities to teach students these higher-level thinking skills are now requiring even more effective

staff development for teachers (Gulamhussein, 2013).

The current reality is that schools are being challenged to find new ways to provide

critically needed professional learning to teachers with minimal funds. Current professional

learning focused on technology integration is usually delivered as part of local school

professional development by administrators or other teachers and/or delivered by district

technology coaches who are few in number and spread too thin in the number of schools they’re

responsible for, often resulting in lack of follow up support that is critical. The current

professional learning delivery methods are too often not moving teachers past the identified

barriers and are delivering mixed results in classrooms. Reciprocal peer coaching is a

professional development model that is not only cost-effective, but also addresses many of the

identified barriers to technology integration while incorporating many of the identified most

effective professional learning strategies to help teachers integrate technology into their lessons.

Although peer coaching as a model for professional learning to improve teachers’ technology

integration abilities has been studied, there is limited research on using reciprocal peer coaching

to do so and limited technology-focused peer coaching research that focuses solely on

elementary teachers. As teachers’ beliefs and attitudes can be critical factors that derail

implementation of any technology-focused professional learning, this study will focus on

elementary teachers’ experiences and perceptions about the effects of reciprocal peer coaching

on their abilities to integrate technology in their classrooms.


Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine elementary teachers’ experiences with

peer coaching as an alternative vehicle for professional development and their perceptions about

the effects peer coaching had on their abilities to integrate technology in their classrooms. The

teachers’ experiences and perceptions were analyzed to examine what common reciprocal peer

coaching activities the teachers felt were most impactful and how the teachers felt about the peer

coaching process. The study provides insight to other education professionals on how reciprocal

peer coaching can be used as an alternate professional learning vehicle to provide extended,

ongoing teacher support for technology implementation.

Research Questions

1. What are teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of peer coaching on technology

integration?

2. What are teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of peer coaching on lesson planning

with technology?

3. What are teachers’ perceptions of student achievement and engagement as they relate to

peer coaching and technology integration?

Importance of the study

The U.S. Department of Education (2014) has placed an emphasis on funding for K-12

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) instruction this year while at the same

time 87% of Georgia school systems reported cutting funding for professional learning for

teachers. The U.S. funding focus on STEM is a dual one: to prepare 100,000 effective STEM

teachers over the next decade and to ready students for a competitive global workforce where US

students are lagging behind students in other countries in STEM areas (National Science &


Technology Council, 2013; US Department of Education, 2014). Due to the rapidly changing

nature of technology, even newly trained, highly effective STEM teachers will require effective

professional development methods to keep them from stagnating, burning out, and to learn to

combine strong pedagogical subject knowledge with strong teaching methods, the latter usually a

gift of time and experience for most teachers and a process that peer coaching can potentially

accelerate.

Nearly 80% of school districts have stopped purchasing instructional materials, including

computer software, requiring teachers to become even more innovative in finding ways to

integrate technology into their lessons (Suggs, 2014). Even though some funding issues for

teaching positions, class sizes, and teaching materials have begun to be reversed this year,

professional learning and funding for technology integration support continues to lag behind.

Since the restoration of education funding remains uncertain, it is imperative that schools find

innovative ways to grow teachers’ professional knowledge and skills.

Georgia has the seventh-highest percentage of students living in poverty in the nation.

Many students who live in poverty require additional supportive services to be successful and

close the achievement gap between higher and lower income students. Georgia is a state that

does not direct funding specifically toward programs to close this achievement gap for lower

income students (Suggs, 2014). Of additional concern is availability of working technology in

low income schools and how the technology is being used with students. Ninety percent of high

poverty schools now have internet access, but only 39% of classrooms in those schools have

access as compared to 74% of the classrooms in low poverty schools. In high poverty schools,

computers are used primarily for drill and practice type activities, as opposed to students in low

poverty schools using technology for higher-order thinking activities such as stimulating


creativity, problem solving, working with data, creating multimedia presentations, or

summarizing what has been learned (Green, 2000; Ritzhaupt, Liu, Dawson, & Barron, 2013).

Teachers’ beliefs about their students’ capabilities, how best to address achievement gaps while

engaging students at the same time, and ways to offer all students opportunities to think more

deeply need to be addressed in professional learning.

Recently, many school and district improvement plans mention cultivating 21st century

skills for students. According to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2014) these include

skills in core subjects, 21st century content, learning and thinking skills, information and

communication technology literacy, and life skills. The Common Core standards have an

emphasis on teaching critical thinking, a 21st century skill. At the same time that professional

development is needed so that teachers can meet the required changes in the classroom, teachers

are presented with a lack of professional development opportunities and outdated professional

development methods. Most professional development being delivered today is a workshop-

style model which research shows is ineffective and does not change teacher practice or improve

student learning outcomes. The greatest challenge for teachers when learning new skills comes

when they have to actually implement new skills in their classrooms, which is where ongoing

support becomes critical (Gulamhussein, 2013). Teacher training should involve knowledge,

modeling, practice, and peer coaching. With a skill of medium complexity, teachers may need

up to twenty-five trials to become somewhat proficient (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Changing

teacher beliefs is one of the barriers to teacher technology integration that is repeatedly identified

in the research (Blackwell et al., 2014; Ertmer et al., 1999; Mueller et al., 2008; Parette et al.,

2010). One model of change presented by Gusky (2002) suggests that significant changes in

teachers’ attitudes and beliefs occur after they see evidence of improved student learning; it is


the experience of successful implementation, whether that is increased academic achievement or

increased student engagement, that changes the teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about the using the

newly acquired teaching skill.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this research, the following definitions will be applied:

21st Century Skills: These include skills in core subjects, 21

st century content, learning

and thinking skills, information and communication technology literacy, and life skills

(Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2014).

Common Core Curriculum: A set of high-quality academic standards in Mathematics and

English/Language Arts that were created to ensure that all students graduating from High School

would have the skills and knowledge to succeed in career, college, and life, regardless of where

they live. Forty-three states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department of

Defense Education Activity have voluntarily adopted and are moving forward with the Common

Core (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014).

Digital Natives: People born after the massive introduction of digital information into

everyday life. A term used to refer to today’s students who have grown up using technology and

who think and process information differently than their predecessors (Prensky, 2001; Valek &

Sladek, 2012).

Digital Immigrants: People who were born before the massive introduction of digital

information into everyday life, but have become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects


of the new technology. Although they learn to adapt to their environment, they always retain, to

some degree, their grounding in their past experiences (Prensky, 2001; Valek & Sladek, 2012).

District Technology Coach: Provide resources, training, and support to ensure that all

schools reach a consistent technology standard that enhances the teaching and learning process in

each classroom through the effective use of technology (Cobb County School District, 2014).

High-Poverty Schools: A public school where more than 75% of the student enrollment

was eligible for free or reduced-price meals (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).

Low-Poverty Schools: A public school where 25% or less of the students are eligible for

free or reduced-price meals (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).

Peer Coaching: A form of professional development that involves using existing staff to

act as leaders in assisting teachers with a skill or process. It involves using observation,

modeling, reflection, feedback, and revision of current practices (Frazier, 2011).

Professional Learning/Development: Programs that allow teachers or administrators to

acquire the knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs successfully (Glossary of

Educational Terms Website, 2008).

Reciprocal Peer Coaching: Two or more teachers regularly discuss their efforts to

support each other in planning for student learning, experiment with instructional methods, and

observe each other’s teaching. Teachers take turns being a teacher coach and a coached teacher

(Zwart, Wubbels, Bolhuis, & Bergen, 2008).

STEM: Science, Math, Technology, Engineering, and Math subjects (U.S. Department of

Education, 2014).


Technology Integration: Incorporating technological tools in the classroom to achieve

positive academic results and increased technological literacy for students (Hanover Research,

2014).

Review of the Literature

Introduction

As the prevalence of technology availability and use in our society has increased

dramatically over the past several years, so has funding for technology in schools and the

expectation that teachers will incorporate technology into both their instructional practices and

their students’ activities. While spending for instructional technology has increased, funding for

professional learning that supports teachers in their implementation efforts has decreased in most

school districts since the recession began in 2008 (Suggs, 2014). Research has shown that

teachers often struggle to effectively implement technology in their classrooms without

technology-focused professional development and follow up support (Blackwell et al., 2014;

Garet et al., 2001). Various technology-focused professional development methods have been

discussed in the literature as ways to increase teacher technology integration, such as workshops,

customization of learning, user groups, school-visits, research, hands-on activities, various

coaching methods, and peer observations (Garet et al., 2001; Gulamhussein, 2013; Hanover

Research, 2014; International Society for Technology in Education, 2011; Jewett & MacPhee,

2012; Martin, Strother, Beglau, Bates, Reitzes, & Culp, 2010; Mueller et al., 2008; Parette &

Stoner, 2008; Parette, Hourcade, Blum, Watts, Stoner, Wojcik, & Chrismore, 2013; Sugar &

Tryon, 2014; Vernon-Feagans, Kainz, Hedrick, Ginsberg, & Amendum, 2013). It is imperative

in this new age of high technology expectations and low funding for teacher training to find new,


effective ways to train and support teachers in engaging and teaching the students of today using

the technological tools we are given. These new training methods need to address identified

barriers to teacher technology integration while also maximizing the benefits of technology

integration for students.

Benefits of Technology Integration in Elementary Education

Our students today have grown up immersed in a world filled with technology. Many

have their own personal tablet computers before they even go to school. Research on the

benefits of integrating technology into lessons with young children reveals that using technology

can positively impact student engagement, problem solving, persistence, independence,

motivation to draw, self-esteem, social skills, fine and gross motor skills, cognition,

communication, self-help skills, attention to task, emergent literacy skills, motivation, visual

tracking skills, self-concept, creativity, mathematical thinking, cooperation (Couse & Chen,

2010; Hutinger, Johanson, & Rippey, 2000; Mohammad & Mohammad, 2012). Since there are

numerous proven benefits to integrating technology into our classroom activities, many

associated with higher-level thinking skills, it behooves us to find ways around the established

barriers to teacher technology implementation to effectively train teachers to use available

technology tools with students.

Technology Implementation Barriers

Research shows that there has been an increase in available technology in classrooms in

recent years, but a decrease in teacher and student use of the available technology (Blackwell et

al., 2014). Numerous barriers to teacher technology implementation have been identified in the

research, such as preexisting teaching beliefs, teachers’ attitudes toward the educational value of


technology, teachers’ pre-existing skills with technology, the constant changing nature of

technology leading to lack of comfort for teachers, the perception that using technology will

interfere with the teacher’s relationship with their students, inadequate preparation in university

courses in the area of technology integration, connectivity issues, and issues with technology not

working and teachers not able to correct the problems independently, therefore derailing lessons

and resulting in lost instructional time (Blackwell et al., 2014; Mueller et al., 2008; Parette et al.,

2010).

When teacher technology integration is supported by professional development, another

set of barriers needs to be considered regarding effective professional development. The realm

of professional development has a long history with a variety of methods for improving teachers’

practices; the overarching goal always being to increase student achievement. Research shows

that traditional teacher professional development has been delivered in a workshop model and

lacked adequate ongoing support for learning, so that teachers are left struggling to implement

their new learning (Gulamhussein, 2013). Additionally, lack of time for collaborative planning

to use technology is another barrier commonly discussed in the recent research (Jewett &

MacPhee, 2012). The literature shows that the most effective professional learning for teachers

is highly customized, incorporates professional learning over a longer time period, involves

teachers in hands-on active learning that incorporates technologies that teachers will be using,

focuses on academic content, integrates learning into the daily life of the school, and encourages

professional communication (Garet et al., 2001; Hanover Research, 2014).


Non-Peer Coaching Models

Teacher coaching is a professional development model that incorporates many of the

most effective professional learning practices mentioned in the literature. Some coaching

models employ a non-peer, or expert, coach. These coaches work with teachers by creating a

relationship between the coach and the teacher and then working together to synthesize

professional development learning, troubleshoot technology issues, collaboratively plan lessons,

observe the teacher’s lessons in the classroom and provide feedback on the lessons, as well as

reflection and problem solving related to observed lessons and technology (Barton, Pribble, &

Chen, 2013; Martin et al, 2010; Sugar & Tryon, 2014; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2013). Although

this model does incorporate many of the effective professional development practices, such as

customization, professional communication, ongoing support over time, hands-on learning

within the classroom using authentic technology tools in lessons focused on academic content, it

also utilizes an expert mentor rather than a peer, which for some districts is financially

unrealistic. Further, teachers may be less than comfortable with an expert coach, which could

cause the professional learning experience to become less teacher-driven and authentic than it

could be with a peer coach. Additionally, teachers may come to rely too much on an expert

coach for their expertise and assistance, not taking that final step to independence and becoming

the teacher rather than the student.

Peer Coaching Models

Peer coaching models put both participants on equal footing; both are coaches at some

points and are coached at other points. Participants take turns coaching and giving feedback.

Peer coaching incorporates the aforementioned best practices of professional development while


also creating a close, ongoing peer relationship and support system within the school setting.

Peer coaching can change teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward technology, two of the barriers

repeatedly identified in the research, by helping teachers first successfully implement new

practices with technology in the classroom, leading to observable changes in student learning

(Blackwell et al., 2014; Ertmer et al., 1999; Gusky, 2002; Mueller et al, 2008; Parette et al.,

2010).

Different models of peer coaching are discussed in the literature. Frazier (2011)

conducted a study where both peers were learners, but one peer experienced with pedagogy and

curriculum was in the coach role while the other assumed the teacher role for the duration of the

study. Jewett, & MacPhee (2012) conducted a study where teachers created reciprocal

relationships and became co-learners, finding ways to locate peers that they could create a

coaching relationship with based on common interests or issues. Other instances of common-

interest user groups found in the literature are led by skilled practitioners to provide needed

training with guided practice and exploration, collaboration to create activities to use in the

classroom, individualization of instruction, and on-site support. (Parette & Stoner, 2008; Parette

et al, 2013).

Implications for Further Research

Since technology use continues to be on the rise and technology innovations compound

daily at a dizzying speed, it is critical to be able to have an adequately trained, capable workforce

of teachers who can effectively integrate these technologies. Further research is needed to

determine if there is a relationship between peer coaching specifically aimed at teacher

technology integration and subsequent student academic achievement. Leveraging technology


tools to engage our students in the classroom is also an area where research is needed to

determine how technology-integration focused peer coaching affects students’ engagement in

various academic areas. Frazier (2011) suggests studying peer coaching over an extended period

of time to determine the sustainability of the program. Since this study focuses on reciprocal

peer coaching at the elementary level, extending the research to the middle and high school

levels could provide additional insight and a different perspective on the effectiveness of peer

coaching at a wider variety of instructional levels.

Conclusion

Students who are unengaged, uninterested in the lessons we are trying to teach them, and

are reaching out to learn about what they are interested in, on their own outside of school, using a

personal learning network on the World Wide Web; these are the possibilities for the future if we

continue to fall short on effectively using technology with students in schools. Another thought:

if students are not learning to use technology responsibly and safely with adult supervision in an

educational setting, where are they learning and what are they learning on their own?

Of the professional development models discussed in the literature, a peer coaching

program as a vehicle to increase technology integration among elementary educators has great

potential to help teachers move past identified barriers to technology integration, especially the

barrier of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes, by letting teachers see student learning growth that

happens because of changes in their teaching practices (Gusky, 2002). Peer coaching also offers

ongoing support and job-embedded, authentic learning, critical items lacking in many traditional

professional development models.


Methodology Design

This qualitative study uses an instrumental case study design to gain insights into how

peer coaching can impact teachers’ technology integration abilities in the classroom. The study

also investigates how teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about technology integration are impacted as

a result of participating in peer coaching focused on technology integration. Instrumental case

study design is an appropriate choice for this study as the information gleaned can be used to

inform and develop a theory about how teachers’ can be most effectively helped to overcome

barriers to technology integration and more effectively integrate technology into their classroom

activities (Creswell, 2012).

The goal of case study research is to thoroughly understand the case being studied. An

advantage to the case study approach is the close relationship between researcher and

participants that enable participants to tell their stories, describe their perceptions of reality, and

enable better understanding by the researcher of the participants’ actions (Baxter & Jack, 2008).

Case studies are in-depth explorations of a bounded system; this study will be bounded by time

and place, situated in a particular elementary school for a set number of weeks.

Some ethical considerations for case study researchers identified by Creswell (2012) that

this researcher addressed are being transparent about gathering data, obtaining informed consent

from all participants, interacting professionally, accurately and clearly conveying the purpose of

the study, ensuring privacy and being aware of potential negative impacts the publication of the

study may have, and giving back by leaving the site better in some way than it was before the

study. Some possible limitations to the study include amount of time available for study, group

size since all participants are volunteers, and variety of participants’ areas of instructional

specialty.


This research study has ten steps: research the problem, design the study, identify the site

and gain permissions, recruit volunteers, train volunteers on reciprocal peer coaching, have

district technology coach review or deliver training on technology integration topics, revise study

questions and data collection instruments, collect data, analyze data, report data.

Participants

The participants in this study were five teacher volunteers from an Elementary School in

Marietta, Georgia. The participants included two Kindergarten teachers, a first grade teacher, an

interrelated special education teacher working with primary grade students, and a special

education teacher working with students who have severe disabilities in a self-contained setting.

Teachers organized themselves into peer coaching relationships of their choice with minimal

assistance from the researcher and ended up creating two peer coaching groups who worked

together during the study. The first group was a Kindergarten teacher and the interrelated special

education teacher. The second group of three included the first grade teacher, a Kindergarten

teacher, and the self-contained special education teacher.

Data Sources & Collection

Creswell (2012) discusses five steps in the process of collecting data in a qualitative

study. I identified my own workplace as the site for the study. After receiving permission from

the school district and participants to conduct the study I considered what kinds of information

would answer my research questions and revised my questions as needed. I ensured that my

planned data collection instruments were aligned with my research questions and collected data

while being aware of potential ethical issues. The length of the study was eight weeks during the

spring semester of 2015; this encompassed conducting peer coaching training for volunteers,


implementing the peer coaching process, and data collection. Data analysis was conducted post-

study implementation.

For case study researchers, the goal is to end the process with a deep understanding of a

case or issue; researchers collect as many types of data as possible to develop this understanding

(Creswell, 2012). As such, I collected peer coaches’ classroom observation data, coaching

collaboration logs, and conducted participant interviews at the end of the study.

Observations

I collected copies of classroom observation data from participants. Peer coaches used the

ISTE Classroom Observation Tool to provide feedback to their partners on teacher roles, student

learning activities and groupings, teacher and student technology use, technology standards

being addressed, and student engagement observed during each lesson. Participants used these

completed documents as they discussed the classroom observation together and brainstormed

how to further improve classroom technology implementation.

Collaboration Logs

Collaboration logs, like the one used by Microsoft Partners in Education, were used by

participants to inform the researcher about both the quantity and quality of time spent in

reciprocal peer coaching activities. Logs provided information to the researcher about number of

days and amount of time spent in peer coaching activities, kinds of learning activities and

technology integration the teachers used, teachers’ perceptions about what worked well and what

did not work well in each lesson, what teachers perceived to be the impact of their technology

integration on student learning, if any, and next planned activities.


Interviews

One-on-one, face to face interviews were conducted with all participants at the end of the

study time period to collect data on teachers’ perceptions about the peer coaching process and its

influence on their technology integration practices. Interviews were recorded to give the

researcher an accurate record of the conversation that could be reviewed as many times as

needed (Creswell, 2012). Interviews were semi-structured, with open-ended questions pre-

selected, but with the possibility for the researcher to ask additional clarifying questions to obtain

further information as needed.

Trustworthiness

Since case studies involve extensive data collection and triangulation of data that

enhances the credibility of the collected data, this study collected and analyzed multiple forms of

qualitative data such as classroom observations, collaboration logs, and teacher interviews

(Baxter & Jack, 2008; Creswell, 2012). These data items will allow for analysis that will inform

the researcher about teachers’ experiences and perceptions about the peer coaching process and

its effect on their technology integration abilities.

Several steps were taken during this study to address issues of study quality and

trustworthiness. Prior to this study, the researcher conducted extensive exploration of previous

research findings to determine alignment of the purposes of this study with prior ones; this

information was then used to make comparisons between this study’s results to previous studies’

findings. Details about all aspects of the study are provided, including evidence of the decision

making process, so that readers can assess the credibility and trustworthiness of the work.

Methodological triangulation of data sources establishes and verifies meaning through collection


and analysis of multiple data sources. The researcher conducted the study at her own elementary

schools, so rapport with the participants was already been established and multiple perspectives

were collected and analyzed to reduce social desirability responses in interviews. To further

enhance data validity, member checking was used in this study by sending copies of interview

narratives to participants for review, feedback, clarification, and elaboration (Baxter & Jack,

2008, Greenaway, 2014, Shenton, 2004; Snyder, 2012).

Protocols were used for data recording so the researcher was able to anticipate potential

problems in data collection (Creswell, 2012). Interviews were semi-structured with a

predetermined set of questions and were recorded by the researcher; copies will be erased upon

completion of the study. Protocols were also used for classroom observations by having a

common observation form for peer coaches to use when conducting observations and providing

feedback to their partners.

Data Analysis

Creswell (2012) outlines a variety of options for analysis of qualitative data. Data in this

study was organized by type to identify emerging themes. Hand coding was employed by the

researcher to code text and listing, then grouping, all the code words. The data was then re-

examined in an effort to reduce the list of codes to themes that participants discussed repeatedly.

These themes about elementary teachers’ experiences and perceptions about the effects of

reciprocal peer coaching on their technology integration abilities are discussed in the results and

conclusion portion of this paper.


Findings

Peer Coaching and Technology Integration

RQ1: What are teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of peer coaching on technology

integration?

Upon analysis of collaboration logs, classroom observation tools, and interview data,

overall, teacher participants in the study perceived peer coaching to have had a positive impact

on their abilities to integrate technology into their classroom lessons. Common themes in the

data emerged of peer coaching having increased teacher confidence, and teachers feeling like

observations and peer feedback were the most valuable key components in the process that the

participants felt contributed to the effect peer coaching had on teachers’ abilities to increase their

technology integration.

Teacher Confidence. All teachers in the study commented during their interviews that

they felt the peer coaching process had resulted in an increase in their confidence regarding their

abilities to integrate technology into their classroom lessons. Teachers felt that positive feedback

and encouragement from peers built their self-esteem and made them feel more willing to take

risks and try new digital tools in their classroom. One Kindergarten teacher stated, “The

feedback you get from your peer coach builds your self-esteem”. The peer coaching process

provided ongoing support during implementation of new technology tools and teachers cited this

built-in support system for timely help as another reason their confidence was boosted.

The Power of Observation. Having the opportunity to observe in another teacher’s

classroom was cited as one of the most powerful and beneficial components of peer coaching by

teachers who participated in the study; it was also cited as one of the components participants


would like to do more. Interestingly, most teachers reported feeling nervous the first time a peer

observed in their classroom, but these same teachers all felt that as the coaching relationship

progressed, this feeling disappeared. Teachers felt that observing in other teacher’s classrooms

gave them new ideas and made them aware of a greater variety of ways technology could be

used that they had not previously considered. Teachers noted that they appreciated being able to

get not only technology ideas from their observations, but also ideas for classroom management

and general teaching pedagogy. Most teachers reported observing something in a peer’s

classroom that they were able to take and adapt to use in their own classroom. Teachers also felt

that watching other teachers teach using technology made new digital tools less intimidating to

them.

Peer Feedback. Another component of the peer coaching process that teachers felt was

most beneficial and stated they desired to spend more time with was receiving peer feedback on

their lessons. Participants overall felt that their peer coaches gave meaningful and thoughtful

feedback and that the feedback was helpful as they planned for future lessons using the same or

similar technology. One special education teacher summed up these feelings with the comment

that the peer feedback was like taking a friend shopping with you to shop for swimsuits, “It’s not

always what you want to hear, but it’s what you need to hear.”

Peer Coaching and Teacher Planning

RQ2: What are teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of peer coaching on lesson planning

with technology?

The analysis of the data showed that the teacher participants felt the peer coaching

process had a positive impact, overall, on assisting them with planning for technology integration


and lesson planning. The themes that emerged during data analysis revealed the importance peer

relationships and collaborative planning activities had in relationship to teachers’ ability to

integrate technology in their classrooms. The one caveat to these positive perceptions was in the

area of time; all teachers in the study voiced time concerns related to the peer coaching process.

The Importance of Relationships. When asked if they would recommend peer

coaching to others, overwhelmingly study participants’ responses were affirmative. All teachers

felt like the peer coaching relationship they had been a part of had been a positive and supportive

experience. One Kindergarten teacher stated, “I feel closer to [my peer coaches] since beginning

peer coaching and I’m more likely to go to them to ask about a lesson, for help with technology,

to ask to observe something in their classroom, or to show me how to do something than I was

before.” Teachers felt like they had been part of a positive relationship where they were given

positive, but constructive feedback from their peers. Participants reported feeling encouraged

and motivated by their peer coach and that there was, as one participant put it, a feeling of,

“contagious enthusiasm.” The issue of comfort came up repeatedly during interviews, with

teachers stating they felt peer coaching would work best with someone a participant was

comfortable with. These comments, taken along with teacher’s initial feelings of nervousness

working with their peers that transitioned during the study to feelings of comfort, draws the

possible conclusion that the peer coaching process encourages feelings of familiarity and comfort

with peers which can lead to more effective coaching and collaborative relationships. One

Kindergarten teacher stated that, “Peer coaching is powerful because it’s not an outside person

who doesn’t necessarily have a realistic understanding of your day to day, it’s not your principal,

so it’s not evaluative; it’s someone in your same environment, on the same page as you, who can


relate to you best and give you the most realistic suggestions.” Another participant, a first grade

teacher, stated that in peer coaching, “You feel like they’re in it with you.”

Collaborative Planning. Teachers in this study followed the brainstorm, plan for

instruction and assessment with technology integration, observe, reflect and give feedback peer

coaching model. Teachers felt that having someone to bounce ideas off of and give them

suggestions for how to improve the lesson before implementation was helpful. One special

education teachers stated that she “felt inspired to do more” because of the process of

collaborative planning; a sentiment echoed by peers who felt that the planning process gave them

“aha moments” when peers suggested using technology in a way that was innovative or that they

simply hadn’t considered. One Kindergarten teacher stated that having a peer coach to plan with

“made hard things easy and showed me how flexible and versatile technology could be.”

Collaborative planning increased the quality of teachers’ lessons as well. One Kindergarten

teacher summed the participants’ feelings on lesson quality as “having someone to talk through a

lesson as you’re planning just makes it so much more intentional when you’re implementing it.”

During planning lessons with the intention of incorporating technology, teachers in the study

found that it was most effective to start with content and then decide what technology would fit

with the content rather than to try to choose the technology first and fit it to the content. Several

peer coaching groups reported implementing lessons where they chose the technology first and

fit it to the content; this method did not result in the depth of learning that occurred when content

was addressed first. The statement that best summed up participants’ feelings on collaborative

planning was from one of the special education teachers, “The more chances you took, the better

the learning was.”


Issues of Time. Notably, the only overwhelmingly negative comments regarding the

peer coaching process were regarding the issues of time. These included time management,

maximizing instructional time, and finding time for the actual peer coaching process itself.

Technical issues arose in at least one lesson in every peer coaching relationship; some teachers

were able to resolve by troubleshooting on the spot, some coaches were able to step in and help

resolve, and some went unresolved and teachers had to move on to an alternative plan. This

illustrates the importance of always having a backup plan where lessons involving technology

are concerned. In the “What Needs to Change” column of classroom observation logs, many

entries had notes about increasing or decreasing time for the lesson; clearly time management is

an issue teachers will face and make allowances for when trying out new digital tools with

students. The biggest concerns about time from participants came in the area of finding time for

the actual coaching relationship. All participants stated that finding time to plan together and

finding time to observe in their peer’s classroom was tricky if the duo did not have common

planning time. One participant suggested that if she were to participate in peer coaching again,

she would pre-set meeting times by planning them out ahead with her peer coach at the outset of

the peer coaching experience. Another issue that came up was the peers’ desire to observe in

each other’s classrooms at a variety of different times where they would be able to see

technology integration in lessons of different subjects. Participants stated that students having to

do activities at times out of their normal routines to do them at a time that was convenient for the

coach to observe sometimes made student behavior and attention more challenging.

Peer Coaching, Student Engagement, and Achievement

RQ3: What are teachers’ perceptions of student achievement and engagement as they relate to

peer coaching and technology integration?


When discussing teachers’ feelings and perceptions of student engagement and

achievement as related to peer coaching for technology integration, teachers comments pointed

to recurring themes of feeling that student behavior, motivation, and use of higher-order thinking

skills increased positively during the study.

Student Behavior. Teacher observation logs revealed few behavior issues during

lessons that integrated technology; something the teachers attributed to students’ increased

engagement due to the use of technology. The behavior issues that were noted during

observations were also discussed in reflection, and it was clear that both partners in the peer

coaching relationship learned from both the challenges and the collaborative reflection upon

them. Some collaboration logs showed that teachers planned to address the behavior challenges

in future lessons after identifying potential reasons for them. One Kindergarten teacher stated,

“Safe, whole group lessons were more boring for the children, but the messier lessons that

sometimes required more planning, but that students worked on individually or in pairs and had

the most hands-on time with technology, were the most exciting for the kids.” This sentiment

was echoed by all the teachers in the study. These types of lessons were identified to be the most

engaging and have the fewest issues with off-task behavior or behavior issues; in this study,

overwhelmingly, teachers perceived that increased engagement through technology equated to

increased positive behavior. Student attention is often equated with behavior; all teachers in the

study felt that technology-infused lessons held students’ attention longer, with scenarios where

students were one-to-one with technology being the best scenario to hold students’ attention.


Student Motivation. Teachers reported feeling that peer coaching helped them integrate

technology in their classrooms in a way that increased student interest in academic activities. In

interviews, teachers reported feeling that students were more willing to do activities, more

invested in the activities, and put more effort into activities when technology was integrated.

One Kindergarten teacher stated, “My kids put more effort into the process of learning and

stayed on task.” A first grade teacher stated, “Excitement was way up; their faces looked

excited.” One special education teacher said, “They want to learn content because they are

interested and involved with technology.” Students today are digital natives, having grown up

with technology, so it is not surprising that teachers in this study felt that students were more

interested, involved, and excited about activities when they were introduced to novel digital tools

during the peer coaching lessons during the study.

Use of Higher-Order Thinking Skills. Teachers feeling like they had made strides in

increasing student use of higher-order thinking skills through integrating technology in their

lessons came up in all participant interviews post-study. One Kindergarten teacher stated that, “I

had the realization through trying out new technology that there was a more impactful way I

could use it in the future or maybe the context I used it for this time wasn’t as effective as it

could have been.” Collaborative logs show that though teachers may have felt their use of

technology may not have been the best use initially, they then collaborated with their peer coach

and planned for how to make better, more impactful use of the technology in a future lesson.

Teachers reported feeling that more students interacted with the learning activities when

technology was being used and that students welcomed more independence in learning activities

when technology was being used than in more traditional learning activities. Peer coaching gave

teachers ideas for how to present content in a variety of ways using a variety of resources and


many teachers talked about getting ideas for how to differentiate using technology from their

peer coach. All collaboration logs, observation tool recording sheets, and interviews revealed

elements of student choice, independence, hands-on activities, multi-modality, fun, peer

interaction and collaboration, student-led planning, student-generated ideas for activities,

creativity, and student responsibility in the lessons that were collaboratively planned with peer

coaches.

Limitations & Recommendations

This study lasted for eight weeks, one of which was interrupted for several days by

school being closed for snow. It is recommended that future studies be conducted for longer

periods of time to determine how teachers’ feelings and perceptions about the peer coaching

process to increase technology integration might be impacted over a longer study. This study

involved a very small sample of volunteers, only five, three of which were primary teachers and

two of which were special education teachers. It is recommended that future studies be

conducted with larger participant samples and a sample of participants from a greater variety of

grade levels to better understand, and possibly compare, the feelings and perceptions of teachers

at the primary, intermediate, middle school, and high school levels. Future studies might also

investigate teachers’ feelings regarding peer coaching with a same-grade or same-subject peer

compared to a cross-grade or cross-subject peer. In this study, the biggest challenge that teachers

faced and commented about in their interviews were issues related to time. It is recommended

that future studies investigate various ways to address the time and planning issues discussed in

this study, possibly through creative pairings of peers or through innovative ways to create time

for teachers to collaboratively plan and conduct classroom observations. Due to the limited time

for this study, only one workshop training on peer coaching was delivered to participants prior to


implementing peer coaching. It is recommended that future studies deliver more in-depth peer

coaching training and possible team-building activities prior to study implementation to increase

initial peer comfort and make the process more effective.


References

Barton, E., Pribble, L., & Chen, C. (2013). The use of e-mail to deliver performance-based

feedback to early childhood practitioners. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(3), 270-297.

Retrieved from

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true

&db=rzh&AN=2012679504&site=eds-live&scope=site

Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and

implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf

Bielefeldt, T. (2012). ISTE classroom observation tool: ICOT v3.1 user manual. International

Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved on October 25, 2014 from http://2012-

leadership-forum.iste.wikispaces.net/file/view/ICOT%2BInstructions%2Bv3.1.pdf

Blackwell, C., Lauricella, A. & Wartella, E. (2014). Factors influencing digital technology use

in early childhood education. Computers & Education 77 (2014), 82–90. Retrieved from

http://web5.soc.northwestern.edu/cmhd/wp-

content/uploads/2011/06/Blackwell.Lauricella.Wartella.2014.Factors-influencing-digital-

tech-use-in-early-education.pdf

Cobb County School District, Department of Instructional Technology. (2014). Retrieved on

October 30, 2014 from

http://www.cobbk12.org/centraloffice/InstructionalTechnology/staff.aspx

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Retrieved on October 30, 2014) from

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=2012679504&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=2012679504&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf

http://web5.soc.northwestern.edu/cmhd/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Blackwell.Lauricella.Wartella.2014.Factors-influencing-digital-tech-use-in-early-education.pdf



http://www.cobbk12.org/centraloffice/InstructionalTechnology/staff.aspx

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/


Couse, L. & Chen, D. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for

early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75-

98. Retrieved from


&db=bth&AN=53500538&site=eds-live&scope=site

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (4th

ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Ertmer, P.A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs

about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 32(1), 54. Retrieved from



Frazier, T. (2011). The effects of peer coaching for technology integration on teachers’ comfort,

practice, and student technology literacy. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/etd/472

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional

development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American

Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. Retrieved from

http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/aera_designing_0.pdf

Glossary of educational terms. (2008). Retrieved October 30, 2014 from

http://www.schoolwisepress.com/smart/dict/dict2.html

Green, Laura. (2000). Bridging the digital divide in our schools- achieving technology equity

for all students. Intercultural Development Research Association. Retrieved on October

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=53500538&site=eds-live&scope=site




http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/etd/472

http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/aera_designing_0.pdf

http://www.schoolwisepress.com/smart/dict/dict2.html


30, 2014 from

http://www.idra.org/IDRA_Newsletter/May_2000_Equity_and_Excellence/Bridging_the

_Digital_Divide_in_Our_Schools/

Greenaway, Lesley. (2014). Using case study in research: How to tell a good story. Retrieved

from http://www.evaluationservices.co.uk/46/Using-case-study-research-How-to-tell-

039good039-story/

Gulamhussein, Allison. (2013). Teaching the teachers: effective professional development in an

era of high stakes accountability. Alexandria, VA: Center for Public Education.

Retrieved on October 25, 2014 from

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/teachingtheteachers

Guskey, T. (2012). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8:3,

381-391. Retrieved from

http://www.lerenvandocenten.nl/files/sites/default/files/Guskey_2002.pdf

Hanover Research. (2014). Professional development for technology integration. Retrieved

from

https://ts.madison.k12.wi.us/files/techsvc/Professional%20Development%20for%20Tech

nology%20Integration.pdf

Hutinger, P., Johanson, J., & Rippey, R. (2000). Benefits of a comprehensive technology system

in an early childhood setting: Results of a three-year study. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED444275.pdf

International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). ISTE white paper on technology,

coaching, and community power partners for improved professional development in

primary and secondary education. Retrieved from

http://www.idra.org/IDRA_Newsletter/May_2000_Equity_and_Excellence/Bridging_the_Digital_Divide_in_Our_Schools/

http://www.idra.org/IDRA_Newsletter/May_2000_Equity_and_Excellence/Bridging_the_Digital_Divide_in_Our_Schools/

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/teachingtheteachers

https://ts.madison.k12.wi.us/files/techsvc/Professional%20Development%20for%20Technology%20Integration.pdf

https://ts.madison.k12.wi.us/files/techsvc/Professional%20Development%20for%20Technology%20Integration.pdf

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED444275.pdf


http://www.instructionalcoach.org/images/downloads/ISTE_Whitepaper_June_Final_Edi

ts.pdf

International Society for Technology in Education. (2012). ISTE classroom observation tool

(ICOT). Retrieved on October 25, 2014 from

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iste.org%2Fd

ocs%2Fexcel-files%2Ficot.xlsm%3Fsfvrsn%3D2

Jewett, P., & MacPhee, D. (2012). Adding collaborative peer coaching to our teaching

identities. Reading Teacher, 66(2), 105-110. Retrieved from


&db=eric&AN=EJ982263&site=eds-live&scope=site

Martin, W., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T. & Culp, K. (2010). Connecting

instructional technology professional development to teacher and student outcomes.

Journal of Research on Technology Education, 43(1), 53-74. Retrieved from



Microsoft. (n.d.) Peer coaching sample collaboration logs. Retrieved on October 29, 2014 from

http://www.schoolnet.org.za/PILP/peer-coaching/s2-conduct-a-planning-meeting.html

Mohammad, M. & Mohammad, H. (2012). Computer integration into the early childhood

curriculum. Education, 133(1), 97-116. Retrieved from


&db=a9h&AN=79776967&site=eds-live&scope=site

Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C. & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating

variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited

http://www.instructionalcoach.org/images/downloads/ISTE_Whitepaper_June_Final_Edits.pdf

http://www.instructionalcoach.org/images/downloads/ISTE_Whitepaper_June_Final_Edits.pdf

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iste.org%2Fdocs%2Fexcel-files%2Ficot.xlsm%3Fsfvrsn%3D2


http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ982263&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ982263&site=eds-live&scope=site




http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=79776967&site=eds-live&scope=site



integration. Computers & Education 51 (2008), 1523–1537. Retrieved from

http://www.wlu.ca/documents/31235/CAE1180_DFA_article_Mueller_et_al_2008.pdf

National Science & Technology Council. (2013). Federal Science, Technology, Engineering,

and Mathematics (STEM) Education 5 Year Strategic Plan. Report from Committee on

STEM Education. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2013.pdf

Parette, H. & Stoner, J. (2008). Benefits of assistive technology user groups for early childhood

education professionals. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(4), 313-319. Retrieved

from



Parette, H., Quesenberry, A. & Blum, C. (2010). Missing the boat with technology usage in

early childhood settings: a 21st century view of developmentally appropriate practice.

Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 335-343. Retrieved from



Parette, H., Hourcade, J., Blum, C., Watts, E., Stoner, J., Wojcik, B. & Chrismore, S. (2013).

Technology user groups and early childhood education: A preliminary study. Early

Childhood Education Journal, 41(3), 171-179. Retrieved from



Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2014). Professional development for the 21

st century.

Retrieved on October 29, 2014 from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/ProfDev.pdf

http://www.wlu.ca/documents/31235/CAE1180_DFA_article_Mueller_et_al_2008.pdf








Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. MCB University

Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001. Retrieved from http://marcprensky.com/articles-in-

publications/

Prensky, M. (2013). Our brains extended. Educational Leadership, (6). Retrieved from


&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.322050402&site=eds-live&scope=site

Ritzhaupt, A., Liu, F., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. (2013). Differences in student information and

communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, and gender

evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 45(4), 291-307. Retrieved from


&db=cph&AN=88950127&site=eds-live&scope=site

Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.

Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. Retrieved from



Snyder, C. (2012). A case study of a case study: Analysis of a robust qualitative research

methodology. Qualitative Report, 17(26), 1-21. Retrieved from


&db=eric&AN=EJ974849&site=eds-live&scope=site

Snyder, T., Dillow, S., & National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of Education

Statistics. NCES 2014-015. Retrieved from

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.322050402&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.322050402&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cph&AN=88950127&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cph&AN=88950127&site=eds-live&scope=site



&db=eric&AN=ED544576&site=eds-live&scope=site

Sugar, W. & Tryon, P. (2014). Development of a virtual technology coach to support

technology integration for K-12 educators. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to

Improve Learning, 58(3), 54-62. Retrieved from



Suggs, C. (2014). Cutting class to make ends meet 2014. Atlanta, Georgia: Georgia Budget &

Policy Institute. Retrieved on October 26, 2014 from http://gbpi.org/

Suggs, C. (2014). The Schoolhouse Squeeze 2014. Atlanta, Georgia: Georgia Budget & Policy

Institute. Retrieved on October 27. 2014 from http://gbpi.org/

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Fiscal year 2014 budget summary and background

information. Retrieved from:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget14/summary/14summary.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). The condition of education 2014. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014083.pdf

Valek, J. & Sladek, P. (2012). Immersed into digital world learning and students’ perception.

Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69 (International Conference on Education

& Educational Psychology (ICEEPSY) 2012), 1866-1870. Retrieved from


&db=edselp&AN=S1877042812056066&site=eds-live&scope=site

Vernon-Feagans, L., Kainz, K., Hedrick, A., Ginsberg, M. & Amendum, S. (2013). Live

webcam coaching to help early elementary classroom teachers provide effective literacy

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED544576&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED544576&site=eds-live&scope=site



http://gbpi.org/

http://gbpi.org/

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S1877042812056066&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S1877042812056066&site=eds-live&scope=site


instruction for struggling readers: The targeted reading intervention. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1175-1187. Retrieved from


&db=pdh&AN=2013-31547-001&site=eds-live&scope=site

Warf, B. (2013). Contemporary digital divides in the United States. Journal of Economic &

Social Geography, 104(1), 1-17. Retrieved from



Zwart, R., Wubbels, T., Bolhuis, S., & Bergen, T. (2008). Teacher learning through reciprocal

peer coaching: An analysis of activity sequences. Teaching and Teacher Education,

24(4), 982-1002. Retrieved from


&db=psyh&AN=2008-03617-013&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2013-31547-001&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2013-31547-001&site=eds-live&scope=site



http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2008-03617-013&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2008-03617-013&site=eds-live&scope=site


Appendix A

Data Collection Tools

ISTE Classroom Observation Tool retrieved from

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iste.org%2Fdocs%2

Fexcel-files%2Ficot.xlsm%3Fsfvrsn%3D2

Reciprocal Peer Coaching Collaboration Logs retrieved from






Appendix B

Interview Questions

General Opening Questions

1. How do you define and describe peer coaching? 2. In what ways have engaged in peer coaching?

RQ 1: What are teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of peer coaching on technology

integration?

3. Please discuss a peer coaching experience focused on technology integration. a. How did the peer coach assist you? b. How did you feel during the process?

4. How effective do you perceive peer coaching to be on your ability to integrate technology?

RQ 2: How do teachers utilize peer coaching to assist with technology integration and

lesson planning?

5. How do you use peer coaching when planning to use technology? 6. How do you use peer coaching to assist you with technology integration? 7. How has the peer coaching process impacted your ability to integrate new technology

into your classroom lessons?

RQ3: What are teachers’ perceptions of student achievement and engagement as they

relate to peer coaching and technology integration?

8. In what ways do you perceive that peer coaching and your technology integration influence student achievement?

9. In what ways do you perceive that peer coaching and your technology integration influence student engagement?

General Closing Questions

10. Would you recommend peer coaching to a colleague? Why or why not? 11. What peer coaching activities did you feel were most beneficial? 12. What peer coaching activities did you feel were least beneficial? 13. What did you learn about peer coaching during the process that you would do

differently next time? 14. What did you experience during peer coaching that you would keep as part of the

process? 15. What are your overall perceptions of the peer coaching process? 16. What are your overall perceptions of peer coaching relationship?

peer coaching and technology integration: a qualitative...

Documents