One-to-One Technology as it Relates to Student Engagement by Michelle Wilson A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in Curriculum and Instruction WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah December 12, 2023 Approved Katarina Pantic, Ph.D. Ryan Cain, Ph.D. Megan Hamilton (Jan 3, 2024 10:08 MST) Megan Hamilton, Ph.D. 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................2 Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................3 Literature Review.................................................................................................................5 The COVID Pandemic and Technology ..........................................................................5 One-to-One Technology ......................................................................................................6 Defining and Achieving Engagement ..............................................................................8 Purpose ...............................................................................................................................10 Method ...............................................................................................................................11 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................14 Figure 1 .......................................................................................................................15 Results ................................................................................................................................16 Behavioral Engagement .................................................................................................16 Figure 2 .......................................................................................................................17 Figure 3 .......................................................................................................................18 Cognitive Engagement ...................................................................................................19 Emotional Engagement ..................................................................................................21 Uncategorized Engagement............................................................................................23 Figure 4 .......................................................................................................................25 Discussion ......................................................................................................................26 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................31 References ..........................................................................................................................32 Appendix A ........................................................................................................................39 Appendix B ........................................................................................................................40 Appendix C ........................................................................................................................43 Appendix D ........................................................................................................................46 Appendix E ........................................................................................................................47 3 Problem Statement As a response to school closures at the beginning of the COVID pandemic in March of 2020 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020), a School District in the Intermountain West of the US issued an announcement that notified parents of both the school closure as well as how to continue schooling remotely (Ellis, 2020). Part of the remote at-home learning included device check-out for all students who did not have access to a computer. Six months later at the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year and as students returned to schools in-person, the school district began distributing personal laptops to every student in secondary education. All students were provided with a personal laptop, unless they opted out, because they had access to a personal device (Davis School District, n.d.). The goal for providing this one-to-one technology, where each student has access to one device (e.g., a Chromebook) was to allow all students to continue to have access to online learning whether in school or when working remotely from home. The hope was that this would allow for continuous access to learning materials regardless of the unpredictability of the COVID pandemic. The implementation of this plan has continued until the present day with each secondary student in this district having access to a personal device. While one-to-one technology use was a critical, creative, and necessary response to the COVID pandemic, their introduction created a new challenge for the teachers who had to adapt to a new teaching method incorporating technology as part of their classroom instruction (Davis School District, n.d.). Many teachers felt ill-equipped to both learn the medium themselves and instruct students using technology in such a short window of time (Winter et al., 2021). In addition to adding stress to teacher’s lives, one-on-one technology increased technological distractions for students (Flanigan et al., 2020). My experience working in three different secondary education schools between January 2021 and June of 2022 indicated that 4 student access to one-to-one devices made them disengaged with education, particularly regarding classroom participation. For example, it is easy for students to delay turning in assignments during class, because they are available through Canvas or other educational platforms. Although that can be beneficial at times, as it allows students to be thorough or take additional time (Canvas, 2022), it is often an excuse to check out mentally from classroom learning through online distractions. It is difficult for students to divide their focus between what the teacher is instructing and the device in front of the student's eyes (Gordon, 2021). Similarly, distractions such as games, social media, and texting services are ever present through this type of one-to-one technology, making it easy to quickly navigate between educational websites and true distractions, so students struggle to stay focused (Awwad et al., 2013). Chronic disengagement and distractions are problematic, as some evidence points to the fact that they also affect test and academic performance (Soland et al., 2019). In October 2022, for instance, a press release from ACT CEO, Janet Godwin indicated a significant decline in ACT test scores from previous years (ACT Newsroom, 2022). Although our state remains just above the national average, the national average test score is the lowest it has been since 1991 (Williams & Steinbrecher, 2022). Some of this decline naturally could be due to the “Covid Slide”, the learning loss many students experienced during the early months of the COVID pandemic (Samuel & Tarasawa, 2020), but it is also worth exploring the relationship between student engagement and effective teaching. To that end, in this paper, I am going to explore the teaching strategies and skills that teachers who successfully implement one-on-one devices use when engaging students in a lesson with such devices. A case study of a teacher recommended by administrators as a successful user 5 of one-to-one technology will be conducted to look for specific traits and techniques used to actively engage students. The research will address the following research question: RQ: How does a teacher successfully engage students while using one-to-one technology in the classroom? Literature Review The COVID Pandemic and Technology The COVID pandemic of 2020 brought about many educational changes, the most drastic being the move to remote or online learning in May of 2020 (Ellis, 2020). Physical school closures, remote learning, and the shift to online delivery of educational material had many impacts on students’ educational experiences (Di Petro et al., 2020). Many schools closed temporarily and moved to online delivery of educational materials (Spitzer et al., 2021). In addition to alternative approaches to educational delivery and decreased time spent in classroom learning, there were many social and emotional changes for students as well, including: environmental stress, a decrease in student-to-student interaction, digital infrastructure inadequacies, and lack of student motivation (Di Petro et al., 2020). Educational inequalities also became more pronounced during the COVID pandemic (Doyle, 2020). Variations of student access to the Internet, parental knowledge and home support, and other financial burdens brought on by the COVID pandemic hindered the educational experiences of students (Stanistreet et al., 2020). Students, whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold, experienced lack of necessary resources, such as Internet access and environmental support (Stanistreet et al., 2020). These supports might include parental help with homework, access to tutors and other specialists, and a dedicated space for doing homework free from distractions (Michigan Department of Education, 2021). 6 One significant change with the shift to online learning is the decreased amount of time students spent on educational pursuits. From mid-March to the end of April of 2020, the average student spent between four and eight hours less each week on schoolwork and 20% of students spent less than nine hours total a week on their schoolwork (Di Petro et al., 2020). For students whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold, the amount of time spent learning is even greater brought on by a lack of parental support, internet access and or appropriate home space for learning (Winter et al., 2021). Decreased student-to-student interaction also had impacts on educational outcomes. Benefits from in-classroom education, such as positive peer encouragement and motivation decreased during the pandemic as did face-to-face benefits of teacher-student interaction including increased self-esteem (Di Petro et al., 2020). Elementary school children, in particular, are much less likely to communicate and interact with their peers through online formats than through face-to-face contact (Ash, 2009). Many teachers expressed difficulty in engaging students immediately following school closures despite having conferencing tools and online educational delivery (Rannastu-Avalos et al., 2020). Developing engaging, collaborative learning environments was particularly challenging (Spitzer et al., 2021). One-to-One Technology The educational situation where all students have access to a personal device (e.g., laptops, Chromebooks, tablets) is called one-to-one technology or 1:1 in abbreviated form (EdTick, 2022). One-to-one technology can provide varied teaching strategies that appeal to both students and teachers. A key benefit of using one-to-one technology is the access and efficiency of educational materials (Clark, 1994). Having a personal device was essential during the COVID pandemic, connecting students with course materials, peers, teachers, and supplemental 7 online materials (Bernacki et al., 2020). Asynchronous contribution to shared assignments and group work is another advantage. If they have a personal device, students can go at their own pace and schedule while meaningfully collaborating with peers. Additional benefits of one-to-one technology extend past the COVID pandemic. For example, online platforms, such as Google Forms, Kahoot or Nearpod, that provide formative assessments can provide real-time, ongoing feedback for teachers. Utilizing these strategies provides frequent, immediate information that can help teachers adjust materials accordingly (Bernacki et al., 2020). Furthermore, one-to-one technology provides students with the ability to seek help on specific problems and receive additional and needed instruction, such as when a teacher provides a platform for message boards, links for additional resources, and real-time communication for concerns (Canvas, 2022). Mobile communication through technology allows students to address concerns in a timely manner while providing a platform that can be less frightening than in-person communication (Bernacki et al., 2020). Specific, tailored communication can take place between teacher and learner with the use of one-to-one technology (Bernacki et al., 2020). Despite the ease and accessibility of technology, questions still arise about its efficacy and impact. Some studies indicate student laptop use in the classroom had a negative impact on self-regulatory behaviors (Ravizza, Uitvlugt, & Fenn, 2017), distractions for peers (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014), and reduced information recall (Ragan, Jennings, Massey, & Doolittle, 2014). Research indicates that there are positive (Ran et al., 2021) and/or modest gains when instructors use technology in the classroom, but it is unclear whether the technology interventions are better than non-technology interventions (Cheung & Slavin, 2013). It has long 8 been known that technology can provide different methods of content delivery, but media alone is not necessarily advantageous (Clark, 1994). It is a variety of cognitive delivery methods that impact student learning, not the use of media or one-to-one technology itself (Clark, 1994). In other words, the use of one-to-one technology or computers are not the critical factors in determining student success, but rather an additional teaching strategy employed through computers that promotes success. Technology interventions work best when they facilitate personalized instruction, expand opportunities for practice, increase learner engagement through fun online activities and improve teaching quality. Education technology interventions and learning should complement existing standard teaching methods, not replace those methods (Vegas, 2022). Efforts should be made to determine if online interventions differentiate from traditional methods of interventions with particular emphasis on the teaching strategy and delivery of those interventions. Design and delivery are both important, distinct components of one-to-one technology use (Clark, 1994). Defining and Achieving Engagement Some studies indicate that other factors play a greater role in promoting engagement than one-to-one technology. These factors include teacher quality, variety of instruction, and variety in course selection (Chen et al., 2010; Chiu et al., 2018; Chiu, 2022). In addition to external learning factors, both intrinsically motivated students and more competent students perform better than their peers when using one-to-one technology (Dunn et al., 2019). Online learning has its place in current curricula, but how and why it is used are critical components of success (Rapanta et al., 2020). Engagement includes behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement (Fredericks et al., 2004). Behavioral engagement is characterized by the outward behaviors conveyed by the 9 student that includes paying attention with body language (eyes on the teacher, assigned task or speaker), responding to and asking questions, avoiding disruptive behavior, and following classroom procedures (UCMERCED, n.d.). According to the same authors, cognitive engagement can be defined by a higher level of understanding of material that is obtained through appropriate asking of questions, seeking out additional resources, and positively interacting with course materials and or assignments. Emotional engagement includes a positive attitude, interest level, enjoyment, curiosity, and ability to interact with peers (UCMERCED, n.d.). Teachers can promote emotional engagement by more successfully creating a supportive classroom, expressing their own emotion and or excitement in teaching, using appropriate humor, inspiring student imagination, and helping students identify and understand their own emotions (Armstrong, 2017). For the purposes of this paper, I used the same definition of engagement which includes behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement (Fredericks et al., 2004). Teachers capable of supporting students’ needs play an important role in student motivation and engagement. This type of teacher demonstrates knowledge of how to make successful media presentations and videos for instruction, knowledge of using easily accessible media for students who are historically marginalized, and the ability to use engaging and fun learning materials (Chiu, 2022). Greater student success emerged when teachers had the knowledge to support students' use of devices both in and out of the classroom; teachers created content that is engaging, valuable and accessible; and when teachers felt capable of distributing and presenting that material both in person and online (Adams, 2022). This author suggests that both strong, highly proactive teaching strategies and engaging teaching methods and delivery are critical to student success. 10 In addition to the importance of successful teaching methods and strategies, student needs must be met for academic success. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can be applied to student needs which are the same for both online and in-person learning (Jones, 2017). These needs include: physiological needs (food, water, and clean bathrooms), a physically safe and comfortable learning environment, a school culture of belonging and friendship, student sense of self (self-esteem, respect, and feelings of achievement), and self-actualization (opportunities for creativity and problem-solving) (Jones, 2017). Therefore, when teachers support these needs, whether in person or through an online classroom, there is a greater possibility of student success and engagement (Chiu, 2022). Current research suggests that encouraging participation and careful selection of classroom activities promote engagement, supporting self-determination theory (Brown et al., 2022). Analyzing specific teaching strategies and behaviors is essential for understanding how to effectively engage students, particularly at a time when one-to-one technology use is common practice in the classroom. Simply utilizing online resources is not sufficient in predicting positive student outcomes (Dunn et al., 2019). How and why digital resources are administered and applied are critical for student success. Purpose There is a need for teachers to adapt to a new mode of instruction involving oneto-one technology, but not all teachers know how to do that effectively. Simply adapting previous coursework into a digital format is not the solution. Research shows incomplete data on the use of one-to-one technology used in isolation as a successful method of engaging students (Clark, 1994). It is understanding and adapting to this relatively new academic approach that is critical for educational advancement (Bernacki et al., 2020). We need to uncover teaching skills and strategies that effectively engage students while utilizing one-to-one technology. 11 The purpose of this research is to determine: the teaching methods that engage students in their learning process, with an emphasis on the use of one-to-one technology the tools that a teacher can use to create an environment that promotes student participation and engagement while using one-to-one technology both in and out of the classroom Method A case study is a useful research method when describing a complex phenomenon through real-life observation and analysis using triangulation of data. Case studies are particularly useful for explaining a current condition, such as a one-to-one technology use in the educational setting, by taking a rigorous look at a particular situation (Yin, 2009). This study was conducted to identify specific traits and techniques used to actively engage students. The teacher participating in the case study was recommended by administrators in a school district in the Intermountain West region of the US, as both a successful user of oneto-one technology and as someone who is effectively engaging students (behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally). Prior to starting data collection, I received an IRB approval from both Weber State University and the school district in which this study was conducted. Context In this public school district, there are more than 70,000 students in over 90 schools. Twenty-five of those schools are secondary schools. The district’s minority enrollment is 20%, with 11% Hispanic/Latino students and 14% of students being economically disadvantaged. The high school graduation rate is 85% and 99% of teachers are certified (US News, n.d.). 12 Data Collection For this study, I collected four types of data. Those data sources included: an interview with the school administrator, classroom observations and an exit interview with a teacher, and analysis of one Canvas course. First, an interview was conducted with a school administrator to discuss and determine the qualifications of the teacher selected and the administrator’s perceptions regarding one-to-one technology. The administrator interview (see Appendix A for the protocol) provided insight to the specific traits and characteristics of the teacher being studied. An administrator provided additional, outside perspective on how the teacher engages students and utilizes one-to-one technology. This administrator was a secondary school teacher for nine years before transitioning to an administrative role. She worked at a high school for two years before assuming her role as assistant principal at the Junior High where she worked for four years at the time of the interview. She is in her late 30s and has worked within the same district throughout the duration of her career. The interview took approximately 20 minutes to complete and was audio recorded and then transcribed using Google Recorder. The administrator was given an informed consent document (Appendix E) which she signed prior to the interview. Second, a teacher was selected to be observed in their classroom. The administrator recommended this teacher because of her proficiency with technology and success at engaging students in the classroom. The educator observed has worked within the district for ten years, and she has been a full-time teacher at this school for three years. This teacher is in her late 20s and had worked as a paraeducator and substitute teacher before becoming a full-time educator. This educator was given an informed consent document (Appendix E) which she signed the document prior to her participation. This teacher was observed in their personal classroom setting for eight 90-minute class periods. Observations were made about the classroom, educator, 13 and their students. The focus of the observation was primarily on how the teacher uses one-toone technology in their classroom to engage students behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally, as defined previously. Classroom observations also had a rubric for evaluating engagement. Appendix C served as a guide for these observations. One hundred and hour total points were possible with a score of 78 (average score of 3 per category) being deemed satisfactory. Following the observations, an exit interview was conducted with the teacher. The interview took approximately 15 minutes to complete and was audio recorded and then transcribed using Google Recorder. This interview was used to clarify any questions raised during observations and to get more information about the teacher and their approach to one-toone technology integration and engagement. The questions for this interview are found in Appendix D. Finally, one Canvas course this teacher created was analyzed. A Canvas course evaluation was chosen, because it can provide additional insight to how a teacher engages students with their course design. Elements such as course layout, methods of communication through one-to-one technology, and the type of assignments that are given in the course can provide important information on engagement strategies the teacher uses. In this study, the rubric used for evaluating the Canvas course (Johnson, 2019), is listed in the reference section of this paper in Appendix B. I adapted the rubric to link each criterion to different types of student engagement (Fredericks et al., 2004) to add structure to my analysis. I chose to analyze a Canvas course, because I believe that focusing on a teacher who successfully utilizes technology provided insight into the teaching approaches needed to engage students in the learning process. Studying her techniques, approaches, classroom, and assignments provided the needed data for helping educators adapt to current curriculum while 14 incorporating one-to-one technology. The rubric found in Appendix B is the rubric I used to evaluate the Canvas course. Identifying the components of a Canvas course that address behavioral, cognitive, and emotional needs indicated the efficacy of Canvas course engagement in relationship to one-to-one use. Canvas course evaluations that receive a score of at least 72 out of 96 (an average score of 3 for each requirement) will be evaluated as a successfully engaging Canvas course. Data Analysis Relying on conceptual or theoretical propositions is an important part of data analysis (Yin, 2009). For this project, the research emerged from the framework that: engagement occurs when academic needs [behavioral, cognitive, and emotional] (Fredericks et al., 2004) are successfully met by specific teaching strategies (Chiu, 2022). To answer my research question, which focused on how a teacher engaged students in using one-to-one technology successfully, I analyzed the data in two phases. During the first phase, I applied open coding to identify each occurrence of engagement (Emerson, 1995). To identify each code, I analyzed each interview transcript, notes from each observation, and Canvas evaluation summary and then highlighted each example of engagement as it relates to one-to-one technology. Another researcher discussed the codes with me after the first round of coding until we achieved agreement and to make sure the codes represented an answer to the research question proposed in this study. This phase of coding generated 140 unique codes. Next, I proceeded to organize codes into related categories (Patton, 2002), based on Fredericks et al.’s (2004) framework. I highlighted each engagement occurrence with a specific color: blue for behavioral engagement, green for cognitive engagement, red for emotional 15 engagement, and purple for uncategorized engagement. The fourth category, uncategorized engagement was necessary for those data occurrences that relate to engagement, but do not strongly correlate with engagement as it relates to behavioral, cognitive or emotional engagement. This information was then used to create a digital whiteboard using Canva to visually group the individual data points into one of their related four categories of engagement. This was also reviewed and edited by another researched until consensus was reached on each category. Figure 1 represents the timeline of the coding process. Figure 1 Data Analysis Timeline The rubrics in Appendix B and Appendix C were used to evaluate the Canvas course and classroom observation. As mentioned in the purpose of this research section of this paper, an important element of this research was to identify effective teaching methods and tools while using one-to-one technology. Analyzing and evaluating the classroom practices and Canvas course page using the rubrics found in Appendix B and C were an important element of answering my research question. Appendix B had three categories with several subcategories 16 each: course information, course content, and assessment of student learning. Accessing the teacher’s Canvas course page provided me with the information needed to assign a score of 0-4 for each of the categories and subcategories. There were a total of 96 points possible and the Canvas course was given a score of 93. I applied the same grading material using Appendix C to evaluate the Classroom Observations. There were also three categories and several subcategories including: teaching techniques, educator/student relationship, and observed student behavior. There were 104 points possible, and the classroom observations received a score of 99 points. Results As a reminder, the RQ in this study was “How do teachers successfully engage students using one-to-one technology?”. After analyzing the data, I found four themes that answer this question: behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and uncategorized engagement. Each theme will be described in the following sections. Behavioral Engagement Behavioral engagement was the most prevalent occurrence. There were 73 instances of behavioral engagement (just over 52% of all codes) (see Figure 2 for frequencies with which those codes appeared). The majority of these codes represented actions the students displayed demonstrating they were paying attention to the classroom activity or appropriately using their assigned technology. These codes also represent clear communication of procedures, behaviors, and protocols for active classroom participation. One data point about behavioral engagement appeared several times: policies regarding technology. Cell phone use and correct personal device use were defined in the syllabus, on Canvas, on printed classroom procedures, and were reiterated by the teacher daily during 17 classroom observations. Correct behavioral engagement requires student knowledge about the desired behavior which necessitates repeating. Similarly, having a stated related consequence in place for abusing classroom policy helps students understand expected behavior. The teacher stated that “[using technology] requires setting boundaries.” In other words, there needed to be clear expectations about what was and what was not allowed in class in regard to one-to-one technology use, for student engagement to be effective. Behavioral expectations are outlined in the course syllabus, which is also found on Canvas and is discussed on the first day of class. Reminders of these expectations were communicated throughout the semester. The teacher also stated that “technology [training] is intense at the beginning [of the semester] and then levels off.” In other words, what I learned from this teacher is that teaching students how to use one-to-one technology appropriately and how to use specific programs takes some time initially, both in regard to explaining expectations and helping students engagement requires intense work initially. Technology training becomes a positive habit moving forward if boundaries are established early on. She further explained that: “[t]echnology is great if [the students are] trained. How do the [students] use it appropriately? Right? . . .that's a skill.” Appropriate training, boundaries, and classroom policies help create an environment that encourages positive behavioral engagement. Figure 2 Frequency of Engagement Occurring in Observations, Interviews, Classroom, and Canvas 18 The Classroom Observation Rubric (see Appendix C) revealed a score of 99 out of 104 possible points (see Figure 3). Four possible points for each area of observation are available for each subsection. Observed student behavior received 23 out of 28 points. Several categories received the full four points, but three points were given to the following subcategories which reflects behavioral engagement: students follow teacher instruction, students avoid talking to peers during instruction, students are open to the appropriate webpage when utilizing one-to-one technology, students are free from distractions, and student body positions are directed toward the speaker. Students did not perform these tasks perfectly, but most of the time were engaged or needed few reminders to engage with the appropriate behavior. Figure 3 Classroom Observation Evaluation 19 Providing students with materials to make one-to-one technology use easier is also critical for successful behavioral engagement. This teacher has two large power strips on different sides of the room made available to students if their personal devices are running low on batteries. She also repeats information found on Canvas on the classroom whiteboard or other places in the classroom. All work, whether hard copy, in-class activities, or digital work is turned in or uploaded on Canvas. This ensures that all work is documented and saved in one location which supports accountability and reliability. These strategies all promote positive behavioral engagement both in and out of the classroom. Cognitive Engagement There were 27 occurrences of cognitive engagement (19.3% of all codes). These codes represented times where students were making connections between course material and applying them to other circumstances. Students were interacting with the content in a way that demonstrated learning beyond rote memorization. Cognitive engagement also applied to higher level thinking in regard to discussions or assignments. The Classroom Observation Rubric (see Appendix C) graded teaching techniques, which were largely measures of cognitive engagement. 20 There were 48 points possible, and the teacher received the full 48 points available (see Figure 3). Based on this, I was able to see that the teacher did an exceptional job of using technology effectively by instructing students how to find content and online materials, demonstrating a personal mastery of the tools used, and incorporating both in-class activities with online learning. The administrator interviewed emphasized on two different occasions that “[content should be] interactive,” to secure learning. As observed during classroom observation, the students were seen frequently using their hands, computers, and other course materials to learn, and often during the same activity. Even during classroom discussion and review, the teacher was requiring students to use their laptops and one-to-one technology to find answers and review digital notebooks. Students were frequently asked to combine different learning media to participate and complete assignments. For example, students were encouraged to use digital notes or past projects to help them participate in classroom discussions or assignments. The administrator said that “[this teacher] provides time to share what is done online with the classroom. [She] brings the screen to life [and] interacts with the content and the device.” Students in this classroom are often asked to participate in classroom reflections where they have the opportunity to discuss their experiences using different online tools or projects. Similarly, when the administrator was talking about the teacher’s ability to make connections between coursework and real life, she mentioned that engagement can help students “take that content and take it out of the classroom and into their lives or into another classroom.” This is an excellent example of how this teacher encouraged application of course materials and the value the work has in long term student development. This statement relates strongly to the teacher’s belief that teachers need to “provide time to share what is done online with the classroom . . . why are we learning this?” Classroom discussions and peer-to-peer sharing were 21 frequent in the classroom and encouraged application of material. For example, following a project where students created a week-long menu appropriate for pregnancy, there was a 10minute discussion in class where students shared what they learned and also why it might benefit them both now and in the future. On a separate occasion, there was a similar discussion in class talking about students’ experiences in a cooking lab. Students were asked to share reasons why they thought this was an important learning experience. Some student responses included: “teamwork”, “so we don’t die when we are older [because we can cook]”, and “so our kids like us [because we cook for them].” The teacher was exceptional at encouraging students to apply what they were asked to do in class with their own lives. She shared her own experiences and was comfortable with silence until students were ready to share their own thoughts. Students were also encouraged to try different technologies throughout the class. One assignment was a PowerPoint presentation, another included the use of Canva to create a digital display, while another included a podcast or video. Students were provided many opportunities to translate the experiences they were learning in class to engage meaningfully with the content. This provides students with the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge in an advanced way. Emotional Engagement Emotional engagement also had 27 occurrences of engagement (19.3% of all codes). The teacher provides students with many opportunities to connect and engage in emotionally meaningful ways. The Classroom Observation Rubric (see Appendix C) evaluated the educator/student relationship which is a good evaluation of emotional engagement. The teacher received high points in this category, receiving the full 28 points as seen in Table 2. A good example of encouraging a positive educator/student relationship is a QR code on the door when you enter the classroom that has a link to the class Spotify playlist so students can contribute 22 songs they enjoy to the music list being played when they were doing labs (teacher edits and manages the list). The same link was also available through the course Canvas homepage. This helped students feel connected to the classroom. It also helped them feel valued and that their preferences matter. The Canvas homepage also had links to communicate with the teacher through the district email and to schedule in-person appointments. Once a week, an announcement was sent out through Canvas that connects students to a Google form. This form was a weekly check-in that provided students to share their opinions about certain activities or how they are feeling about certain topics. The teacher said: I've been able to catch some kids that way [google forms/weekly check-ins] that really needed to be caught. Things that they would never say in class, you would never know in class, but they'll put in the form and then I can check in with them. This excerpt shows that the teacher is intentional in understanding how the students are feeling about school, their class load, or current projects. After a school lock-down, for example, she found out several students were feeling high amounts of anxiety, and the teacher adjusted the workload to help ease some of their burdens, and she also provided time in the classroom to talk and have fun. The teacher also encouraged engagement through in-class and online discussions. She encouraged application and connection to experiences from their own lives. She also was willing to share her own experiences. Examples were available throughout the Canvas course which both helps students relate emotionally and answer questions about assignments. Some assignments had several options for students to choose how they demonstrate their learning. The options provide students to work in their preferred learning media thus removing some elements of anxiety and increases positive emotional engagement. 23 Uncategorized Engagement There were 13 instances of uncategorized engagement (less than 9.3% of all codes). Repeated data points that did not fall in one of the three areas of engagement defined by Fredericks et al. (2004) revealed some uncategorized patterns. Although they are listed as “uncategorized”, they deserve some discussion. “Balance” was a word that represented many of these data points. The administrator being interviewed said, that “a teacher that is using [one-toone technology] well has found the balance - of hands-on activity, plus the acknowledgment of technology.” For example, combining different media to teach a principle is important. Using an online game and then a project that includes small-group discussion provided different formats that support one another, and consequently support student engagement. The teacher recognized the importance of using both one-to-one technology in combination with activities that encouraged interpersonal skills. Variety in activity promoted greater opportunities for engagement. “Balancing technology use and still valuing communication and interpersonal skills,” was also important in promoting engagement, according to the teacher. She also embraced learning about technology and various learning platforms with her students. Her outward display of learning about technology empowers students to try difficult and various things with increased willingness. Similarly, variety was important. The administrator also said, “Do something different almost every day”. The teacher agreed with this statement, as she believed that “proactiveness is key . . . keeping them busy by changing activities frequently and moving [helps].” What is more, the administrator believed in the rule of 20: after 20 minutes of one activity, students’ needed to move, switch gears, or change direction. This process can be brief or sustained, but even small changes through variety help students stay engaged and focused. 24 The administrator also pointed out a few important benefits of successful technology use. First, she said that a successful classroom that has information streamlined through a Canvas page benefits students, parents, and substitute teachers. Such accessibility of course material allows students to find what the classroom is studying and learning about through clear communication via Canvas. This allows them to stay up-to-date and engaged with the course even when absent. Analysis of the Canvas course (see Appendix B) revealed the teacher is successful in creating and maintaining a thoughtful Canvas page, which supports students, substitutes, and parents alike. As seen in Figure 4, the Canvas course received high marks in all categories. 25 Figure 4 Canvas Course Evaluation Table Well-communicated Canvas courses also allow parents to find out what is happening in class, course materials, and see upcoming assignment deadlines, which enables discussion and engagement at home. One-to-one technology also benefits substitute teachers. The administrator said, “Online content makes for an easier transition for [substitute teachers]: allowing content to more continuously flow”. This creates a more seamless distribution of materials that benefits students. The Canvas course evaluation received 4’s on all but three subcategories. The Canvas course was consistently clear, defined, and easy to follow, thus aiding in student engagement in a variety of ways. Two categories (resources and accommodations) received 3’s (most of the content is present and clear). Both were mentioned on the home page and/or syllabus but did not appear throughout the website. Rubrics also received a score of three because they were not 26 consistently found through the Canvas course but were available for all assessments and all highstake assignments. Discussion The following section will present the summary of the findings of the research question and discussion in comparison to existing literature in addition to possibilities for future work. In this case study, I wanted to answer one RQ, the question how teachers successfully engage students using one-to-one technology. I found several themes that answered this question. First, I found that behavioral engagement is not only the basis for other types of engagement, but it is also the most prominent engagement used by the teacher in this study. Some ways the teacher engaged students behaviorally were through frequent training of technology used in and out of the classroom, repeating materials and instructions found online in the classroom, utilizing digital notebooks and other media platforms to compliment lectures and discussions, and ensuring the Canvas course is updated frequently and well maintained. This is aligned to prior literature that effective use of a Canvas course promotes behavioral engagement (e.g., Canvas, 2022)., In addition, proper teacher training which this teacher obviously had because she was proficient in using technology in the classroom, can positively impact students’ success in the classroom (e.g. Chiu, 2022; Adams, 2021). It is also aligned with Pantic et al. (2022) study where they found that teachers across the state are generally more open to using technology and using digital material after the pandemic. I also found that existing literature supported my finding that one-to-one technology can at times have a negative impact on self-regulatory behaviors (e.g., Ravizza et al., 2017) or that technology can be a distraction (e.g., Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014). Classroom observations confirmed that some students can be distracted by their phones, playing games on their 27 computer, or listening to music in their headphones which is aligned to prior research concerning classroom technology distractions (Awwad, et al., 2013). The teacher, however, demonstrated the importance of establishing classroom policy regarding technology use in the classroom, such as when and how it is appropriate to use it, as suggested by Cheung & Slavin (2013), and or by reiterating the rules on a daily basis, which was found to have a positive impact on engagement in other studies (e.g., Kirschner et al., 2006). Second, I found that Cognitive Engagement was the primary pedagogical focus for this teacher. Utilizing higher-level questions, a variety of teaching methods, and encouraging application of principles were a priority for this teacher. We know such priorities are good pedagogy, because one of the benefits of one-to-one technologies established in literature is that they provide an opportunity for teachers to use a variety of teaching methods while students have a variety of platforms that allow them to study in their preferred mode of learning (Clark, 1994). Prior research also revealed that cognitive engagement is strong when students have some autonomy in learning (Ryan et al., 2020). The teacher included options for students by allowing them to choose how they complete a project by selecting from creating a PowerPoint presentation, displaying their knowledge visually on Canva, making a video recording or podcast, or creating a game online for example. We also know from research that one-to-one technology has an ability to connect students, peers, and teachers with online, streamlined course content (Bernacki et al., 2020). This study adds to the literature, as I found that this connection goes beyond Canvas course material. The teacher from this study provided all course material both in class and online. Absent students knew exactly how to locate material through daily modules and assignments. Similarly, we know from literature that online platforms provide formative assessments with real-time feedback 28 (Bernacki et al., 2020), another practice that was evident during both classroom observations and teacher interview. What is more, a well-run Canvas course provides students with the opportunity to seek out additional resources or links to future learning (Canvas, 2022). According to UCMERCED (n.d), links to additional resources, ability to review digital notes, study online lectures, etc., provide students with the opportunity for greater cognitive engagement (UCMERCED, n.d.). The teacher in this study had many ways of incorporating these strategies into each lesson and online module with links to videos supporting the curriculum, PowerPoint presentations, and opportunities to request feedback. Studies demonstrating the benefit of technology use in the classroom explain that interventions using one-to-one technology are effective (e.g., Cheung & Slavin, 2013; Flechier, 2019). However, simply implementing one-to-one technology use in a classroom is not sufficient for effective cognitive engagement. In this study, I found that the administrator did not believe all teachers used one-to-one technology effectively, saying that it was least effective if they failed to combine the benefits of both in-person schooling and one-to-one technology. We know from literature that technology opportunities should complement existing standard teaching/learning practices and not replace them entirely (Vegas, 2022). In this study, the most engaging lessons observed were those that utilized one-to-one technology while also including peer-to-peer sharing or whole group discussions. The area that my research expanded past literature was in explaining how and why oneto-one technology is used to promote cognitive engagement. Technology use alone does not promote engagement, but rather, how and why it is used (e.g. Rapanta, et al., 2020). Variety, particularly in regards to technology use, is an important part of encouraging engagement. Variety of activity, variety of platform, and variety of group sizes participating in the activity all 29 encourage different aspects of engagement. As mentioned previously, the rule of 20 minutes was a good rule of thumb for promoting engagement. When activities changed at least every 20 minutes, students were more energetic, more eager to complete the tasks, and willing to try new things. This is aligned with research on Information Processing theory (Wu et al. 2005) and represents a good pedagogical practice. The lab rotation I observed was a good example of this practice. The different stations all had different modes of learning activities (some were handson, some were online, and some were research/textbook based). Each station was organized according to varying interest levels, but all students were engaged because they knew they had limited time at each station. It either gave them the motivation to move quickly to complete the task or it gave them the emotional encouragement they needed for the particularly challenging activities. Frequent variety of activity (daily) was another recommendation of the administrator. During the eight class periods that I observed, I viewed an assessment, a small group lab, digital notebook/PowerPoint lecture, small group table rotations, whole-group discussion, and individual online projects. Activities were frequent and changing which promoted movement, engagement, and participation. The teacher said this change in activity also emphasized the importance of “balancing technology use and still valuing communication and interpersonal skills.” The teacher encouraged peer-to-peer discussion or interactions following online activities. This not only developed interpersonal skills but provided students with an additional opportunity to articulate their learning. Lastly, I found the teacher I observed to be exceptional at promoting emotional engagement in the classroom, which was supported by the literature review. Her ability to tell relevant stories, use of humor, and willingness to discuss difficult issues (Armstrong, 2017) 30 promoted engagement. She also created an environment and accessibility that reduced stress and anxiety as it was found by Ladd and Dinella (2009). The specific one-to-one technology tools she used carried high-level engagement to online learning platforms through weekly check-ins and reflections which aligns with Brown et al.’s (2022) and Dunn et al.’s (2019) findings. In this study, I also found that online communication provided students with timely and less frightening modes of communicating with a teacher, which corresponds with findings from Ash (2009) that emphasize the value of student/teacher communication. Bernacki et al. (2020) also suggested that student/educator connections support positive psychological learning theories. Positive student/educator connections also align with the Canvas (2022) recommendation that multiple ways of communicating with students, such as email and request to set up in-person meetings, helps promote engagement. The teacher I observed not only had those recommended practices, but they also did weekly online check-ins to give students an opportunity to communicate concerns with the teacher in a less frightening way. In my opinion, all those communication strategies increased opportunities for emotional engagement of the students. Although the literature has many recommendations for maximizing emotional engagement in the classroom (Armstrong, 2017), creating emotional engagement through one-toone technology is relatively new. One of the discoveries found in my study was the emotional benefits of one-to-one technology use with parents being able to access coursework. This accessibility to Canvas courses allows parents to have more transparency about what is happening in school which can provide an opportunity for at home discussion and continued engagement beyond the classroom. Grades and daily modules provide parents with talking points with their students and opportunities for school-home connection was a new perspective shared by the administrator. 31 Similarly, this accessibility also provided substitute teachers with greater ability to teach without interruption to class flow. Canvas provides teachers with the ability to communicate with students when they or the students are absent, improving all types of engagement, but particularly emotional because students feel a continued sense of connection with the teacher (e.g. Bernacki et al., 2020). Some anxiety is removed because of that continued access when a teacher is physically absent. A successful teacher can use Canvas announcements to document communication and prevent disruption or confusion about tasks (Canvas, 2020). A well-managed Canvas course is a powerful way to ensure parents, educators, students, and supporting staff have the information they need to successfully engage while using one-to-one technology (Brown et al., 2022). Conclusion In this paper, I explored the question: what tools and teaching strategies can be used to successfully engage students while using one-to-one technology? This study showed that engagement requires a balance of technology with hands-on activities and thoughtful discussions. This implies that variety in activity, a well-constructed Canvas course, and thoughtful application of materials can work together to promote engagement. Based on this study, I recommend careful planning and implementation of one-to-one technology by using a variety of teaching methods that promote behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement. 32 References Adams, J. (2021). What role will technology play in the future classroom? Display Note. https://www.displaynote.com/blog/technology-in-the-future-classroom/ ACT Newsroom (2022). Average ACT score for the high school class of 2022 declines to lowest level in more than 30 years. ACT. https://leadershipblog.act.org/2022/10/GradClassRelease2022.html Armstrong, T. (2017). Six ways to use emotion to increase engagement in the middle or high school classroom. American Institute for Learning and Human Development. https://www.institute4learning.com/2017/02/03/6-ways-to-use-emotion-to-increaseengagement-in-the-middle-or-high-school-classroom/ Associated Press (2022). Test scores dropped to lowest levels in decades during pandemic, according to nationwide exam. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ test-scores-dropped-lowest-levels-decades-pandemic-according-nationwid-rcna53659 Ash, K. (2009). Socialization in virtual education. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/technology/socialization-in-virtual-education/2009/06 Awwad, F., Ayesh, A., & Awwad, S. (2013). Are laptops distracting educational tools in classrooms. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 154-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.320 Bernacki, M. L., Greene, J. A., & Crompton, H. (2020). Mobile technology, learning, and achievement: Advances in understanding and measuring the role of mobile technology in education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101827 Brown, A., Lawrence, J., Basson, M., & Redmond, P. (2022). A conceptual framework to enhance student online learning and engagement in higher education. Higher Education 33 Research & Development, 41(2), 284-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1860912 Canvas (2022). Five reasons to use Canvas LMS in the (physical) classroom. https://www.instructure.com/canvas/resources/all/5-reasons-to-use-canvas-lms-in-thephysical-classroom. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, January 10). CDC Museum COVID-19 Timeline. https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html#:~:text= January%2010%2C%202020,Coronavirus%20(2019%2DnCoV Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for engaging 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 Chiu, T. K. (2022). Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(S1), S14-S30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891998 Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational technology research and development, 21-29. Davis School District (n.d.). Devices and support for remote learning. https://www.davis.k12.ut.us/parents-family/support-for-remote-learning Di Pietro, G., Biagi, F., Costa, P., Karpiński, Z., & Mazza, J. (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based on the existing literature and recent international datasets (Vol. 30275). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Doyle, O. (2020). COVID-19: Exacerbating educational inequalities. Public Policy, 9, 1-10. 34 Dunn, T. J., & Kennedy, M. (2019). Technology Enhanced Learning in higher education; motivations, engagement and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 137, 104113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.004 EdTick (n.d.). 1:1 (one-to-one) technology. EdTick. https://www.edtick.com/en/glossary/1-1one-to-one-technology Ellis, J. (2020). Utah school districts releasing ‘soft closure’ plans. https://ksltv.com/433101/utah-school-districts-releasing-soft-closure-plans/ Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/ book/chicago/W/bo12182616.html Flanigan, A. E., & Babchuk, W. A. (2022). Digital distraction in the classroom: exploring instructor perceptions and reactions. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(3), 352-370. https://doi-rg.hal.weber.edu/10.1080/13562517.2020. 1724937 Flechier, R. (2019). The effect of computer-based instruction on students’ SAT math scores: A causal-comparative study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix). Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109. Gordon, S. (2021). How smartphones create distractions in the classroom. VeryWell Family. https://www.verywellfamily.com/how-smartphones-are-creating-distractions-in-theclassroom-4174646#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20book%20The,is%20used %20in Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers. 35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004 IPT373 Instructor. (2018, August 24). 3 M's - Media Method Modality and Their Roles in Educational Technology Use [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ56_tcvocY Johnson, D. (2019). Canvas course evaluation checklist v2.0. Instructure Community. https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Canvas-Instructional-Designer/Course-EvaluationChecklist-v2-0/ba-p/280349?lightbox-message-images280349=83350i95382B8275499BB0 Jones, D. (2019). Applying Maslow to schools: A new approach to school equity. Defending the Early Years. https://dey.org/applying-maslow-to-schools-a-new-approach-to-schoolequity/ Kew, S. N., Petsangsri, S., Ratanaolarn, T., & Tasir, Z. (2018). Examining the motivation level of students in e-learning in higher education institutions in Thailand: A case study. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2947-2967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9753-z Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Ladd, G.W. & Dinella, L.M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: predictive of children's achievement trajectories from first to either grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 190-206. DOI: 10.1037/a0013153 36 Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 11591168. Michigan Department of Education (May, 2021). Key Elements of High-Quality Early Childhood Learning Environments: Preschool. https://www.michigan.gov//media/Project/Websites/mde/gsrp/standards/Key_Elements_of_HighQuality_Early_Childhood_Learning_Environments_Preschool_Ages_35.pdf?rev=e2bd1168c1be47e8a650c596ed3c65cf#:~:text=This%20document%20identifi es%20and%20articulates,teaching%20practices%2C%20and%20family%20engagement. Pantic, K., Gonzalez, N., & Cain, R. (2023). Utah K-12 teachers’ perspective: Challenges and changes with technology integration during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 27(1), 15-31. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage. Pauls, K. (2022, October 25). The pandemic’s effect on ACT: Sharpening commitments to higher ed. https://leadershipblog.act.org/2022/10/ Ragan, E. D., Jennings, S. R., Massey, J. D., & Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Unregulated use of laptops over time in large lecture classes. Computers & Education, 78, 78-86. Ran, H., Kasli, M., & Secada, W. G. (2021). A meta-analysis on computer technology intervention effects on mathematics achievement for low-performing students in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(1), 119–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120952063 37 Rannastu-Avalos, M., & Siiman, L. A. (2020). Challenges for distance learning and online collaboration in the time of COVID-19: Interviews with science teachers. Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing: 26th International Conference, CollabTech 2020, Tartu, Estonia, September 8–11, 2020, Proceedings 26 (pp. 128-142). Springer International Publishing. Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the COVID-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923-945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y Ravizza, S. M., Uitvlugt, M. G., & Fenn, K. M. (2017). Logged in and zoned out: How laptop internet use relates to classroom learning. Psychological Science, 28(2), 171-180. Samuel, A. & Tarasawa, B. (2020). The COVID-19 slide and what it could mean for student achievement. EdNote. https://ednote.ecs.org/the-covid-19-slide-and-what-it-couldmean-for-student-achievement/ Soland, J., Jensen, N., Keys, T. D., Bi, S. Z., & Wolk, E. (2019). Are test and academic disengagement related? Implications for measurement and practice. Educational Assessment, 24(2), 119-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2019.1575723 Sparks, S. (2022). The COVID academic slide could be worse than expected. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-covid-academic-slide-could-be-worsethan-expected/2022/02 Spitzer, M. W. H., Gutsfeld, R., Wirzberger, M., & Moeller, K. (2021). Evaluating students’ engagement with an online learning environment during and after COVID-19 related 38 school closures: A survival analysis approach. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 25, 100168. Stanistreet, P., Elfert, M., & Atchoarena, D. (2020). Education in the age of COVID-19: Understanding the consequences. International Review of Education, 66, 627-633. TemplateLab (n.d.). https://templatelab.com/teacher-evaluation-forms/ University of California Merced [UCMERCED] (N.D.) Purpose and Types of Engagement. https://teach.ucmerced.edu/pedagogy-guides/purpose-and-types-ofengagement#categories-of-engagement U.S. News (n.d.). Education. https://www.usnews.com/education Vegas, E. (2022). Education technology post covid-19: A missed opportunity? Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-development/2022/03/11/educationtechnology-post-covid-19-a-missed-opportunity/ Williams, B. & Steinbrecher, L. (2022, November 19). Utah average ACT score drops still tops national average. https://ksltv.com/508384/utah-average-act-score-drops-still-topsnational-average/ Winter, E., Costello, A., O’Brien, M., & Hickey, G. (2021). Teachers’ use of technology and the impact of Covid-19. Irish Educational Studies, 40(2), 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.1916559 Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2005). Development of elementary school students' cognitive structures and information processing strategies under long‐term constructivist‐oriented science instruction. Science Education, 89(5), 822-846. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design methods (4th ed.). Sage. 39 Appendix A Administrator Interview 1. What are the commendable traits of this teacher? 2. What do you think they do exceptionally well in their classroom when it comes to one-toone technology? 3. How would you define “engagement?” 4. When you observe and rate a teacher, how do you rate student engagement? 5. What does this teacher do to “engage” students? 6. What are the student perceptions about this teacher? 7. What are your perceptions about their one-to-one technology use in the classroom? (strengths/weaknesses) 40 Appendix B Canvas Course Evaluation Rubric* *Adapted from the Canvas Course Evaluation Checklist 2.0 (Johnson, 2019). Using the rubric: 0 = Not included. 1 = It is included but not clearly defined. 2 = Included and parts are defined. 3 = Most of the content is present and clear. 4 = Consistently clear, defined, and easy to follow. Course Information (40 points possible) Rating Criteria Engagement Type 0 1 2 3 4 Home Page: visual representation of both the subject and course. Includes a course description and explanation of content. Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Navigation: Clear links to course content that is both clean and consistent. Behavioral 0 1 2 3 4 Key learning information: course goals, learning objectives, and standards are clearly and simply defined; course materials, resources, and required materials are listed or linked. Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Class policies: class expectations, rules, etiquette, technology behavior, and classroom behaviors are defined in addition to policies for grading, turning in assignments, late work and/or extra credit. Behavioral Cognitive Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Contact information: instructor contact information, communication preferences, response time, availability information, and picture. Behavioral Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Resources: links and information to institutional resources (district/school website and services). Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Accommodations: are clearly stated and easily located. Behavioral Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Color: choices are selected that make text easy to read and is not used in isolation to convey meaning. Emotional 41 0 1 2 3 4 Images and tables: are used to support course content and accompanied by text descriptions or captions. Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Hyperlink: text appropriately incorporates the hyperlink Behavioral destination/purpose to provide content for readers. Cognitive Course Content (28 points possible) Rating Criteria Engagement Type 0 1 2 3 4 Links: all files, videos, links and external URLs are active and working. Behavioral 0 1 2 3 4 Learning activities: encourage student-student interaction, student-teacher interaction and studentcontent interaction. Collaboration, quality feedback and self-assessment are encouraged. Behavioral Cognitive Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Module Structure: content is organized in manageable pieces that are organized by units, chapters, topics or weeks. Modules are thoughtfully named to include descriptors (“Chapter 2: Protein and Fat,” as opposed to just “Chapter 2”.) Behavioral Cognitive Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Personalized Learning: there are opportunities for student choice in the activities and assignments. Cognitive Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Module Requirements: completion and/or prerequisites are used to provide structure, pacing, and flow. Behavioral 0 1 2 3 4 External Tools: external links or resources (e.g., Khan Academy, Padlet, Nearpod) that are relevant to course content are available to support learning. Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Course Feedback: opportunities for student learning through efficient feedback are present and explained. Both informal and formal feedback provides opportunities for future student improvement. Behavioral Cognitive Assessment of Student Learning (28 points possible) Rating Criteria Engagement Type 42 0 1 2 3 4 Instructions: are detailed and clearly written to ensure understanding and student support. Behavioral 0 1 2 3 4 Assessments: a variety (both informal and informal) are used to increase student engagement and provide opportunities for growth. Behavioral Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Formative (low-stakes) Assessments: (quizzes, discussions, etc.) are used frequently and occur prior to high-stake assessments. Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Summative (high-stakes) Assessments: are aligned with stated goals, learning objectives/standards and/or state requirements. Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Sample Assignments: are provided to demonstrate expectations and to instruct. Behavioral Cognitive Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Grading/Feedback: occurs in a prompt manner and provides high-quality feedback. Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Rubrics: are provided to aid students and are used to evaluate assignments. Cognitive 43 Appendix C Classroom Observation Rubric Rubric modified from Education TemplateLab. Using the rubric: 0 = Not observed 1 =Unsatisfactory; needs significant improvement. 2 = Addressed, but not consistently; needs some improvement. 3 = Good; done well most of the time. 4 = Excellent; mastery of area. Teaching Techniques (48 points possible) Rating Criteria Engagement Type 0 1 2 3 4 Uses one-to-one technology effectively; instructs students how to find content and navigate to required materials. Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Demonstrates mastery of subject matter; can answer questions not provided in text or in classroom resources. Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Demonstrates mastery of tools (one-to-one technology or other classroom equipment) and can articulate or model how students are to use those materials. Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Involves students in course materials and promotes students to follow along or demonstrate their learning. Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Provides interesting, appropriate, and prompt reinforcement/feedback. Cognitive 0 1 2 3 4 Varies procedures for students needing accommodations. Behavioral Cognitive Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Environment is generally neat and attractive. Cognitive Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 To the best of their ability, the climate is well managed (heat, light, and ventilation). Cognitive Emotional 44 0 1 2 3 4 Timing for instruction and assignments are thoughtfully paced. Cognitive Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Directions for independent/group work are thorough and clearly stated. Behavioral 0 1 2 3 4 Teacher preparation is evident. Cognitive Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Student assignments are carefully planned and aligned to class/course objectives. Cognitive Educator/Student Relationship (28 points possible) Rating Criteria Engagement Type 0 1 2 3 4 Maintains student interest and attention. Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Works constructively with individuals or groups. Behavioral Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Manages routine to avoid confusion and maintain classroom control. Behavioral 0 1 2 3 4 Uses positive or constructive statements towards students. Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Acknowledges all answers given by students with Behavioral gentle correction when needed or positive Emotional redirection. 0 1 2 3 4 Provides motivation and encouragement. Emotional 0 1 2 3 4 Provides enrichment or remediation when needed. Behavioral Emotional Observed Student Behavior (28 points possible) Rating Criteria Engagement Type 0 1 2 3 4 Students follow teacher instruction. Behavioral 0 1 2 3 4 Students avoid talking to peers during instruction. Behavioral 45 0 1 2 3 4 Students are open to the appropriate webpage when utilizing one-to-one technology. Behavioral 0 1 2 3 4 Students are free from distractions (cellphones, hand-held toys or other objects). Behavioral 0 1 2 3 4 Students respond to questions with thoughtful answers or are willing to take educated guesses. Behavioral 0 1 2 3 4 Student body positions are directed towards the speaker (eye contact, head up, avoid talking to neighbors, etc.) Behavioral 0 1 2 3 4 Students stay on task with few reminders or are easily redirected when required by the teacher. Behavioral 46 Appendix D Post-Observation Teacher Interview School: Course: Age group: 1. What has your experience been like using one-to-one technology? 2. What do you think you do well in the classroom when it comes to one-to-one technology? 3. What are your perceptions about one-to-one technology use in the classroom? (strengths/weaknesses) 4. How would you define “engagement?” 5. What do you do to “engage” students emotionally? a. behaviorally? b. cognitively? 6. What is an effective way you have used one-to-one technology to engage students? Provide time for clarification of procedures or direct observations made in the classroom. 47 Appendix E WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY INFORMED CONSENT One to One Technology as it Relates to Student Engagement You are invited to participate in a research study of teaching strategies used to effectively engage students while using one-to-one technology. You were selected as a possible subject because you were identified by school administration as one who does an exemplary job of engaging students while utilizing one-to-one technology in the classroom. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. The study is being conducted by Michelle Wilson, graduate student at Weber State University, department of education and supervised by Dr Katarina Pantic, Assistant Professor from Weber State University. STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to identify teaching strategies and techniques that engage secondary education students while using one-to-one technology. Engagement will include behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement. NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: If you agree to participate, you will be one of one, in a single classroom within [name of district] School District, subjects who will be participating in this research. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY: If you agree to be in the study, you will do the following things: Provide access to the Canvas course for the class being observed, participate in direct observation for eight, 90-minute class sessions, and participate in an exit interview following the classroom observations. RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: For face-to-face research, the risks include the possibility of being infected by the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) or other communicable diseases. The risks of completing the survey and being uncomfortable answering the questions. The risks of stress or anxiety caused by being observed while instructing. The risks of possible loss of confidentiality if we are required to share your information by law. BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY 48 You will be given a $50 Target gift card in appreciation for your participation in the study. This will also be an opportunity to share your unique perspectives, experiences, and recommendations as a secondary school teacher. This also has the potential to provide school districts with the information they need to better support teachers and students as they use oneto-one technology. ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: You have the option of not participating in this study. COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY In the event of physical injury resulting from your participation in this research, necessary medical treatment will be provided to you and billed as part of your medical expenses. Costs not covered by your health care insurer will be your responsibility. Also, it is your responsibility to determine the extent of your health care coverage. There is no program in place for other monetary compensation for such injuries. However, you are not giving up any legal rights or benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you are participating in research which is not conducted at a medical facility, you will be responsible for seeking medical care and for the expenses associated with any care received. CONFIDENTIALITY Efforts will be made to keep your personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Your identity will be held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published and databases in which results may be stored. Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State University Institutional Review Board or its designees, the study sponsor, and (as allowed by law) state or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [for FDA-regulated research and research involving positron-emission scanning], the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [for research funded or supported by NCI], the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [for research funded or supported by NIH], etc., who may need to access your medical and/or research records. CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS For questions about the study, contact the researcher Michelle Wilson at XXX-XXXXXXX or the researcher’s academic advisor Katarina Pantic, Ph.D. at XXX-XXX-XXXX 49 For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee IRB@weber.edu. VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with Weber State University. SUBJECT’S CONSENT In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study. I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in this study. Subject’s Printed Name: Subject’s Signature: Date: (must be dated by the subject) Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent: Signature of Person Obtaining Consent: Date: If the study involves children who will be providing their assent on this consent document, rather than on a separate assent document, use the following signatures: Printed Name of Parent: Signature of Parent: Date: