Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to identify the differences in the level, existence, use and integration of technology by comparing the "four pillars" of educational technology, as defined by the CEO Forum, consisting of hardware, connectivity, digital content, and professional development of instructional staff between selected nondigital schools and selected California digital high schools, identified by the California Department of Education as currently receiving digital grant funding, in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. Methodology. The researcher used a quantitative correlational research process in this study. The population consisted of educational instructors from five nondigital and five California digital high schools in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. A questionnaire was utilized to collect data to answer three research questions. For each question, mean scores were determined and differences between nondigital and California digital high schools were ascertained by using the independent t-test. Findings. (1) There is no significant difference in the integration and use of technology in the areas hardware, connectivity, digital content, and professional development between California digital high schools and nondigital high schools. (2) No difference was found in the priority ranking among the "four pillar" areas of technology between California digital high schools and nondigital high schools. (3) The first "pillar" area of priority for digital and nondigital high schools was connectivity, followed by digital content, hardware, and professional development. Conclusions and recommendations. Surprisingly, there was no significant difference between California digital high schools and nondigital high schools in the integration and use of technology. The recommendations include: (1) School sites must build technology capacity to meet the needs of learners in the knowledge-based, global society. (2) The technology learning environment must be designed to achieve high academic performance by students. (3) There must be collaborative agreement on what success with technology looks like in the school setting.