Parents of at risk students reluctance to using technological lea

Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2018 Parents of At-Risk Students Reluctance to Using Technological Learning Platforms MIchelle J. Landley Lee Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.edu/dissertations Part of the Instructional Media Design Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact ScholarWorks@waldenu.

Walden University College of Education This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Michelle Landley Lee has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. Heng-Yu Ku, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty Dr. Asoka Jayasena, Committee Member, Education Faculty Dr.

Shereeza Mohammed, University Reviewer, Education Faculty Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph. Walden University 2018 Abstract Parents of At-Risk Students Reluctance to Using Technological Learning Platforms by Michelle Landley Lee MA, Walden University, 2007 BS, University of the West Indies, 2001 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Educational Technology Walden University 2018 Abstract Despite school leaders’ attempts to implement technology designed to provide resources for parent and student use at home, many parents of at-risk children are reluctant to use the learning platforms. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to describe the meaning of human experiences as they related to parents’ reluctance to using learning management systems (LMSs). Elements from Rogers’s innovation diffusion theory, Davis’s technology acceptance model, and Epstein’s parent involvement model were combined for the study’s conceptual framework.

The research questions addressed the challenges parents encounter with learning platforms; parents’ experiences with teachers and schools with regard to training, orientation, and using learning platforms; and parents’ feelings about establishing a learning institute to support their LMS use. Six parent participants from a small suburban school district in Southeastern United States who self-disclosed that they used LMS less than 3 times per week and had a child that scored at the beginning level of the mandatory state test were purposefully selected for this study. Data were collected through semistructured interviews and analyzed via Moustakas’s modified van Kaam method, which uncovered 4 major themes. The findings indicated that parents avoided using LMSs for several reasons, which included parents’ lack of knowledge regarding accessing and using LMSs, ineffective orientation practices, lack of technical support, and lack of support for training.

This research contributes to the existing body of literature and advances social change by illuminating parents’ challenges with implemented technology. School leaders may use the findings to devise strategic plans to facilitate training programs for parents. Parents of At-Risk Students Reluctance to Using Technological Learning Platforms by Michelle Landley Lee MA, Walden University, 2007 BS, University of the West Indies, 2001 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Education Technology Walden University April 2018 Dedication To my mother, daughter, and sons for their unwavering support and encouragement. I could not have done it without you.

Acknowledgments This dissertation has evolved during the long course of my study. I have benefited from the comments, criticisms, encouragement, and help of numerous persons. First, I must say thanks to my heavenly father who has sustained me throughout this journey. A special thanks to my committee members Dr.

Heng-Yu Ku, Dr. Asoka Jayasena, and Dr. Shereeza Mohammed for their invaluable feedback and guidance. Thanks to Dr.

Paula Dawidowicz for her expertise and advice. A special thanks to my mentor, Dr. Wesley Palmer, who helped me to find valuable research resources and guided me through the dissertation process. A heartfelt thanks to Toni Williams who shared her editing skills and knowledge throughout this process.

My sincere gratitude to Igenie Mills for taking on my parental role throughout this journey. Walden University has an incredible depth of research resources to which I had unconstrained access; I am forever grateful. Thank you, Lisa, for reminding me that, “…there is no testament, without a test,” when I felt despair. To my coworkers, friends, and family members who consistently encouraged me while I conducted my research and wrote this dissertation, I express my sincere gratitude.

Table of Contents List of Tables. vii Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study. 1 Background of the Study. 9 Purpose of the Study.

12 Nature of the Study. 18 Scope and Delimitations. 20 Significance of the Study. 21 Significance to Practice.

22 Significance to Social Change. 22 Summary and Transition. 23 Chapter 2: Literature Review. 25 Literature Search Strategy.

27 Theories of Technology Adoption. 28 i Diffusion of Innovation Theory. 28 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). 30 Parent Involvement Model.

35 Parent Involvement and Technology. 35 Lack of Understanding of Schools Learning Management Websites. 38 The Impact of School Orientation of Technology. 39 Resistance to Change.

44 Technology and the Elderly. 47 Motivation and Technology. 48 Poor Technological Skills of Parents. 49 Barriers to Technology Adoption.

52 Students At-risk. 59 Summary and Conclusions. 59 Chapter 3: Research Method. 62 Research Design and Rationale.

63 The Role of the Researcher. 72 Participant Selection Logic. 76 ii Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection. 79 Data Analysis Plan.

80 Issues of Trustworthiness. 96 First Step: Listing and Preliminary Grouping. 96 iii Second Step: Reduction and Elimination. 97 Third Step: Clustering and Thematizing the Invariant Constituents.

97 Fourth Step: Final Identification of the Invariant Constituents and Themes. 98 Fifth Step: Individual Textural Descriptions. 98 Sixth Step: Individual Structural Description. 99 Seventh Step: Textural-Structural Description.

99 Evidence of Trustworthiness. 121 Individual Textural Descriptions. 127 Individual Structural Descriptions. 139 Textural-Structural Description.

143 Participants’ challenges with using the LMS. The key challenge discovered was the difficulties and confusion experienced in accessing and understanding the LMS due to the lack of knowledge on the LMS. Alia noted that one challenge of the LMS was the complicated process of accessing and understanding the content and materials:. 143 Composite Textural Structural Descriptions.

154 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations. 156 Interpretation of the Findings. 157 Participants’ Challenges with Using LMSs. 158 The Impact of Orientation and Training on Parents’ LMS Adoption.

159 Participants’ Experiences with Technology and Schools Leaders’ Support in Using the LMS. 161 Parents’ Perceptions About Establishing a Technology Learning Institute. 163 Participants’ Challenges with Using LMSs. 163 The Impact of Orientation and Training on Parents’ LMS Adoption.

164 Participants’ Experiences with Technology and Schools Leaders’ Support in Using the LMS. 165 Parents’ Perceptions About Establishing a Technology Learning Institute. 166 Limitations of the Study. 168 Recommendation for Intervention and Future Research.

174 Appendix A: Interview Protocol. 200 v Appendix B: Parent Invitation Letter. 202 Appendix C: Self-Disclosed Survey. 204 Appendix D: Confidentiality Agreement.

205 Appendix E: Homeowners’ Association Letter of Cooperation. 206 vi List of Tables Table 1 Rogers’ Diffusion Innovation Theory Applied in the School Setting. 30 Table 2 Alignment of Research Questions and Interview Questions. 78 Table 3 Breakdown of the Demographics of the Participants.

90 Table 4 Breakdown of the Results of Research Question 1. 102 Table 5 Breakdown of the Results of Research Question 2. 109 Table 6 Breakdown of the Results of Research Question 3. 117 Table 7 Breakdown of the Results of Research Question 4.

121 Table 8 Summary of Themes for All Research Questions. 152 vii 1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study The underperformance of students in core subject areas, such as mathematics and English, is a serious concern for educators in the United States. This concern has led to the implementation of learning platforms designed to bring parents, students, and teachers together in a collaborative learning environment to improve the performance of children; however, some parents are reluctant to use these resources due to technological intimidation (Ponciano, 2014; Blackwell, Lauricella, Wartella, Robb, & Schomburg, 2013; U. Department of Education, 2010).

The impact of technological intimidation among some parents of elementary school children may contribute to the decline in student performance. The academic performance of children in U. elementary schools decreased in 2015 (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2015) and is a frequent topic of debate among educators and policy makers (Ren & Crick, 2012). President Barack Obama expressed concern about the low-performance rates in the nation’s school system by reporting that countries such as China, Singapore, and Japan have surpassed the United States regarding school performance (U.

Department of Education, 2010). Hollingworth, Mansaray, Allen, and Rose (2011) reported that parents’ reluctance to use school technology might substantially reduce their involvement and initiative in their children’s learning process. Curtiss et al. (2015) suggested that modern school technologies have features that encourage parent participation.

The technologies are the results of strategic efforts by school administrators to harness parents’ involvement for the academic advancement of 2 students. However, school officials must understand which factors affect parents’ acceptance of school learning management systems (LMSs). Parents play a significant role in their children’s education; therefore, it is important that parents actively engage in their children’s learning process (Epstein, 2011; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Jeynes, 2011; Shiffman, 2011; Unal 2008), which includes school-implemented technology. Researchers have posited that parents are a valuable resource because their home involvement yields the greatest positive impact on students’ performance (Altschul, 2011; Vera, Israel, Coyle, Cross, Knight-Lynn, Moallem, Bartucci, & Goldberger, 2012).

Parents having the appropriate information might mitigate the risk of children failing in the educational system due to underperformance (Jones & Hinesmon-Mathews (2014). Smith, Wohlstetter, Kuzin, and Pedro (2011) suggested that if parents were taking advantage of the learning opportunities provided by their children’s school, their children would perform at higher educational levels. Parents fully informed of their children’s academic progress can motivate and encourage them. In contrast, ill-informed parents are likely to be unaware of their children’s academic progress.

I conducted this research to provide insight into the lived experiences of parents who are reluctant to use classroom websites designed for teachers, students, and parents’ collaboration as a combined effort to advance students’ academic performance. The study may serve to highlight and develop strategies to engage parents who display non- committal attitudes or technological intimidation (see Modimogale & Kroeze, 2009; Ponciano, 2014) by technology implemented for parent participation at their children’s 3 school. Parents’ nonparticipation in technological learning platforms has resulted in the nonuse of pertinent information accessible online for children’s academic growth. Poor communication has led to misunderstandings between teachers and parents, which has affected students’ education (Hafizi & Papa, 2012; Ponciano, 2014; Zieger & Tan, 2012).

School LMSs have the tools necessary to facilitate positive partnerships among teachers, parents, and students. The effective use of technology in schools has potential benefits related to parents’ improved ability to monitor homework completion, and students’ increased standardized test scores, improved mastery of concepts in the classroom, and increased positive behaviors (Blau & Hameiri, 2010). Researchers and practitioners have long recognized that parent involvement in education at home can take many forms, including activities such as helping with homework assignments, reinforcing fundamental concepts, continuing school-related discussions, and encouraging students to apply themselves to their school’s curriculum (Bowen & Griffin, 2011; Shiffman, 2011). Given the importance of parent involvement in children’s education, educators and administrators have implemented communication and interactive programs with useful tools to ensure parents and teachers are fully engage in the learning process (U.

Department of Education, 2015d). Despite these efforts, many school leaders have experienced difficulties getting parents to take an active part in school programs and use technological learning platforms (Altschul, 2011; Bowen & Griffin, 2011; LaRocque, Kleiman, & Darling, 2011; Olmstead, 2013; Smith et al.