GOOGLE APPS:

AN OPPORTUNITY TO COLLABORATE

by

Kenneth Agcaoili

________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2012




Copyright 2012 Kenneth Agcaoili

All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI 3542364
Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
UMI Number: 3542364

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my family and friends, who stuck by me through
this challenging, yet rewarding chapter of my life. I would like to thank Mr. Brian
Mizuguchi, my first principal, who saw me through the end of this dissertation. Only
he will know how crucial his role was in completing this dissertation. My thanks
also goes out to my dissertation chair, Dom, for his constructive feedback, inspiring
articles, and non-stop humor. Melora and Larry also deserve thanks for serving on
my dissertation committee and providing feedback, which helped me think about
different facets to explore in this dissertation. Finally, I would like to credit the
state-level technology administrators and school-level principals and technology
coordinators who participated in the study: your efforts made this dissertation a
success.


iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables iv
Abstract v
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review 10
Chapter Three: Methodology 44
Chapter Four: Analysis 52
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion 83
Chapter Six: Epilogue 91
References 95
Appendices 101
Appendix A: Survey Instrument 101
Appendix B: Interview Questions for Principals and Technology 106
Coordinators at the School
Appendix C: Interview Questions for State-Level Technology 107
Administrators


iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Teacher Use of Google Apps Email 57
Table 2. Perceived Benefits Obtained from Google Docs Use in the School 63
Table 3. Perceived Benefits Gained from Google Docs Use in the Classroom 65
Table 4. Perceived Benefits Obtained from Google Docs Use in the School 66
Table 5. Teacher Technology Use 70
Table 6. Barriers to Implementing Google Apps 73
Table 7. Students Access to Computers 79
Table 8. Students Access to Computer Labs 80


v
ABSTRACT
Despite years of reform efforts in public education, the classrooms of today
are more like classrooms of 30 years ago, and less like the classrooms intended
according to the goals of reform. One of the goals of reform was to increase
collaborative structures within classrooms, to enable collaboration beyond the school
campus. Collaboration beyond the school campus is thought to allow learners to
participate in a knowledge creation community. Participation in a knowledge
creation community enables learners within a school to collaborate not only with
other learners, but also with experts in a given field. Ultimately, instead of
mimicking subject area experts, learners are able to participate alongside experts,
attempting to solve real world problems.
Collaboration beyond the school campus can be made possible through
technology. Online collaboration tools and the all-encompassing cloud have
sprouted up as possible solutions to facilitate collaboration. However, Google Apps
has emerged as the front runner, because of its unique ability for multiple users to
simultaneously collaborate on a single document in real time. Additionally, Google
Apps provides numerous tools that not only have collaboration as an inherent
feature, but are also specialized to complete numerous tasks.
This study sought to examine how Google Apps improved collaborative
structures in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE), and what hindered the
implementation of Google Apps in HIDOE. The results showed that Google Apps
improved collaborative structures in HIDOE, but the improvements were mainly to

vi
enhance and not change pedagogical practices. The results also showed that barriers
within HIDOE exist, which hinder the implementation of Google Apps. However,
state-level technology administrators have applied administrative innovations, which
allowed for numerous technical innovations.


1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama emphasized
innovation as the main driving force for producing the jobs of tomorrow (Obama,
2011). To ensure that the jobs of tomorrow will be in America and not overseas,
Obama challenged the nation to win the race to educate our children in the fields of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In order to win this
race, public education will need to drastically change what is happening in the
classrooms. Although years of attempts at reforming education have been occurring,
Americas classrooms remain similar to pre-reform classrooms (Christensen, Horn,
& Johnson, 2008). More specific to STEM education, Stigler, Gallimore and Hiebert
(2000) concluded from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) that, despite years of reform efforts, math and science classrooms in
America have changed little. Reform efforts in math and science revolve around
focusing on reasoning and thinking skills, rather than on basic skills or memorization
of facts. Before the presidents vision is realized, Americas public education system
will need to make great steps toward innovations which promote classrooms where
the maximum opportunity for STEM learning will occur. In order for these
innovations to be implemented, public education needs to look to examples within its
organizations where innovations are occurring. These examples of innovations may
provide insight as to how and why the adoption and implementation of an innovation
is possible.

2
Innovation is defined as ...the creation and implementation of new
processes, products, services and methods of delivery which result in significant
improvements in outcomes, efficiency, effectiveness or quality (Albury, 2005, p. 1).
The keyword in the definition is new, where the newness, or the perception of
newness, differentiates between change and innovation (Slappendel, 1996). There is
a prevailing belief that innovation rarely occurs in the public sector. However,
innovations occur at a high frequency in the public sector (Roessner, 1977), but the
widespread adoption of innovation is slower and/or more difficult than in the private
sector (Albury, 2005). One may ask if public education can innovate, when years
and years of reform have resulted in little change to the classroom.
Researchers in education point to the tendency for schools to be risk-averse
and to resist change as the cause for this slow rate of change (Pincus, 1974).
However, the literature points to numerous examples where innovations are
occurring within public education (Pincus, 1974; Roschelle, Vahey, Tatar, Kaput, &
Hegedus, 2003; and Kanuka & Anderson, 1998). Innovations such as a national
curriculum, charter schools, and school choice are all examples where education is
adopting innovations. These examples give way to the possibility for education to
innovate. However, these examples do not point to specific ideas or changes for
promoting STEM learning. Innovations that do promote STEM learning are the two
concepts of knowledge construction and knowledge advancement.
Knowledge construction is generally thought of as learning which is active
and based on what we already know (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998). Knowledge

3
construction often happens in social learning settings (Brown, Collins, & Duguid,
1989). The authors theorize that situated cognition makes knowledge explicit, and
limits the abstraction of knowledge from traditional schooling. This is echoed in
Saloman (1993), who observes that [k]nowledge is commonly socially constructed,
through collaborative efforts toward shared objectives or by dialogues and
challenges brought about by differences in persons perspectives. Saloman quotes
Vygotski, who is commonly associated with social constructivist theory.
Recent theorists see the advancement of knowledge as the primary purpose of
education (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). They see education as responsible for
helping students participate and find their place in this knowledge building society.
The authors note that current STEM methods emphasize idea generation, which
leads to research. They also argue that idea generation is natural to humans, but that
a challenge lies in looking at a current idea and trying to improve on that idea. An
emphasis on, and explicit teaching of idea improvement is needed to advance
knowledge. Student theories, generated through current inquiry methods, should not
be valued according to how a theory conforms to current belief, but how it
contributes to further advancement of knowledge. This change in paradigm will also
transform the classroom from imitating what advanced scholars do, to a classroom
where the emphasis is on advancing the state of knowledge in the classroom itself.
Ultimately, students within these classrooms need to know their place in the
knowledge building community of the world. Scardamalia and Bereiter purposefully
use knowledge building, rather than knowledge construction which is usually

4
associated with constructivist models. Knowledge building is different from
knowledge construction, because it emphasizes knowledge creation and innovation,
which lie outside of the scope of constructivist models. Additionally, knowledge
building requires the use of the Internet for students to participate within the
knowledge building society.
Arguing which theory is superior for the promotion of STEM education is
beyond the scope of this study. Rather, the basic building block of each theory
involves collaboration. Google Apps is a tool that promotes and facilitates
collaboration, which may be a necessary tool for knowledge construction and
advancement to occur.

Statement of the Problem
Education will face a difficult challenge if collaboration is not valued in
schools. Valuing collaboration should not be confused with collaboration occurring.
Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2008) point out that American schools often have
more collaborative structures than schools in other countries. However, despite the
amount of collaboration happening in American schools, the value placed on
collaborative products is still low. Individual student accountability is valued more
than collaborative products (Reeves, 2000). The lack of value placed on
collaborative products results in education resorting to a monolithic approach to
learning. One factor which contributes to this problem is that the resources for
collaboration are few or non-existent.

5
Collaborative tools do exist, but education has not readily adopted tools that
allow for collaboration. An example of such a tool is Google Apps. The Internet
search engine company, Google, provides many innovative web services, which are
free of charge. Google Apps is a collection of tools which can be thought of as a free
replacement for the Microsoft Office suite. Google Apps also provides the user with
collaborative functions that add functionality to the traditional word processing,
spreadsheet, and presentation tools. Although there are many different collaborative
tools on the web, Google has remained a front runner in this market (Hall, Nousala,
& Vines, 2010). Googles reign of the online software collaboration market is
mainly due to it being the only solution that allows for multiple users to
simultaneously edit a common document. Google also offers an enterprise level of
Google Apps, Google Apps for Enterprise, which allows businesses to monitor and
control email, documents, and sign-on capabilities. Google Apps for Enterprise
comes at a premium of $30 per user. However, schools and universities are allowed
to enjoy the same benefits of Google Apps for Enterprise, through Google Apps for
Education, which is free.

Purpose of the Study
A handful of schools within the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE)
have partnered with Google to implement the many tools in Google Apps for
Education. With the implementation of Google Apps, students are able to create and
share a document that all students and teachers can view or edit. The document may

6
take the form of a word processing document, spreadsheet, presentation, drawing,
musical creation, or a website. Additionally, any digital file may be stored and
shared within Google Apps though, much like using Dropbox, there can be no
editing of a file. The purpose of this study is to examine how the implementation of
Google Apps has improved collaborative structures in HIDOE elementary and
middle schools.
The following research questions address the improvement of collaboration
through Google Apps and the barriers to the implementation of Google Apps.
Although there are schools using Google Apps, collaboration may not be the key
reason for its implementation. Teachers may be using this technological tool to
improve efficiency of record keeping, rather than improving collaborative structures.
Additionally, barriers to the implementation of Google Apps may shed light on
financial, pedagogical and technological gaps.

Research Questions
1. How is Google Apps improving collaboration among faculty, students,
and external subject area experts in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools?
2. What hinders the implementation of Google Apps in HIDOE elementary
and middle schools?

7
Importance of the Study
The largest impact of this study would be in informing HIDOE of the tools
currently being used, and any challenges to implementation of these tools for
collaborative projects. Paper and pencils, the limits of which may stifle the
collaborative process, would be replaced by the collaborative tools found in Google
Apps. Christensen et al. (2008) describes one aspect of disruptive innovations as
filling a non-consumption gap. K-12 educators are asked to create collaborative
environments, but are not given the tools necessary to facilitate such an environment.
Tools like Lotus Notes have the potential for collaboration, but access is limited to
adults only. Google Apps would fill the non-consumption gap by providing a
service which does not exist in HIDOE.
Another impact is that HIDOE would be informed of possible solutions for
reducing the costs of implementing technology. Having an all-in-one software suite
could reduce costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Being fiscally responsible
by saving money on software licenses is something HIDOE should not ignore.
One key component to knowledge construction and advancement is the
collaboration of multiple stakeholders engaging in conversations about competing
points of views, to come to new understandings. K-12 education strives for the
construction and advancement of knowledge, but may fall short because classrooms
do not value collaborative projects where students interact with each other to come to
new understandings. One factor which leads to this lack of valuing authentic
collaborative projects might be a lack of tools which allow for collaboration. The

8
tools within Google Apps allow for unprecedented opportunities for collaboration
between multiple stakeholders.
The basic goal of researching how Google Apps is being used in HIDOE
elementary and middle schools is for program improvement. The information
gathered from this research would inform decision-makers as to how Google Apps
could be used to encourage classrooms where collaborative projects are valued.
Ultimately, classrooms that value collaborative projects would yield actual
knowledge construction and advancement, rather than regurgitation of facts.

Limitations
This formative evaluation will be studying innovation within the public
sector. Research in innovation for the public sector has pointed to many examples
where innovations have occurred (Albury, 2005). In an attempt to make innovation a
core characteristic in the public sector, Albury (2005, p. 1) created a framework for
thinking and action, which includes these four major components:
The generation of possibilities;
The trailing and prototyping of promising ideas;
Replication and scaling up;
Analysis and learning.
This study focuses on one component: the trailing and prototyping of
promising ideas. Although all four components are interactive and are not linear, the

9
study of one component will provide insight into the innovative environment of
HIDOE.

Definition of Terms
Collaboration Direct participation by two or more actors in designing,
producing and/or marketing a product (process) (Polenske, 2004, p. 1031).
Common Document An online Google Apps collaborative document, which
may include, but is not limited to, Docs, Spreadsheets, Calendars, Presentations, etc.
Knowledge Construction Processes by which students solve problems and
construct understanding of concepts, phenomena, and situations, considered within
cognitive psychology (van Aalst, 2009, p. 261).
Knowledge Creation A group of learners improving on ideas to solve a
common problem, and recognizing their place in the broader community of learners
(van Aalst, 2009).
Knowledge Sharing Transmission of knowledge between people (van
Aalst, 2009).
Software as a Service (SaaS) The online delivery of software (Dubey &
Wagle, 2007).
Technology Coordinator HIDOE employee responsible for, but not limited
to, the maintenance and implementation of any device that uses electricity.


10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The focus of research on innovation can be organized over time into three
theoretical perspectives: the individualist perspective, the structural perspective, and
the interactive process perspective (Slappendel, 1996). Early research focused on
characteristics and actions of individuals to explain innovative behavior. However,
the individualist perspective was overtaken by research focusing on structural
properties or environmental characteristics to explain innovations in organizations.
Although researchers acknowledged that the two perspectives were intertwined,
research tended to isolate the two into separate branches of study. For example, a
study taking the individualist perspective may emphasize the characteristics of the
leader, while paying less attention to the context which the leader was operating in.
Thus, a third perspective, the interactive perspective, emerged, which attempts to
synthesize and analyze the interconnectedness of the individualist and structuralist
perspectives. Studying innovation through the interactive process best allows
researchers to explain how and why organizations successfully implemented an
innovation.
Like Slappendels interactive process, Albury (2005) provides a framework,
specific to public sector organizations, which is also non-linear and represents the
interacting parts of the innovative process. Alburys framework for successful
innovation in the public sector includes: a) the generation of possibilities; b) the
trailing and prototyping of promising ideas; c) replication and scaling up; and d)

11
analysis and learning. Alburys framework will be used in this study as a model for
thinking and action. However, only one component, the trailing and prototyping of
promising ideas, will be examined. This component focuses on the potential in
organizations for numerous innovative ideas. Once this potential is unleashed, the
task of selecting which innovation to further develop is revealed. Senior managers
need to accomplish this task with selection criteria. If the criteria are too stringent,
innovators may be hesitant and significant innovations will be inhibited. If the
criteria are too lax, then resources will be wasted on failed innovations. Another
factor that affects the selection criteria is risk. Albury notes that public services
generally carry a higher level of risk, because of higher levels of public scrutiny, and
threats to quality of life which need to be accounted for. The tendency for public
services to be risk-averse means that special attention needs to be paid to risk
management. One strategy to manage risk has been pilots and simulations. Pilots
and simulations can test innovations in an environment which would limit the
exposure usually associated with public sector innovations. This study looks at
schools in the public sector that are piloting Google Apps as a collaborative tool.
Although the primary focus of the study is zeroing in on how this innovation is being
used, the adoption and implementation of this innovation will also be studied.
To provide an initial insight of the adoption and implementation of
innovation, types of innovations will be discussed. Daft (1978) defines two distinct
types of innovations: technical innovations, and administrative innovations.
Technical innovations occur in the technical system of the organization and are

12
directly related to the its primary work activity. Technical innovations should not be
confused with technological innovations, which are innovations directly resulting
from the use of technology. The author delves further into the distinction between
technical and administrative innovations. Daft terms the distinction as a dual-core
model of innovation. Technical innovations are more likely to originate from the
line workers, where the need for innovation is driven by what the actual workers are
doing. Administrative innovations are more likely to originate from the top levels of
management. The dual-core model emerges as innovation can either be top-down
or bottom-up. An interesting finding by Daft is that the technical innovations studied
were numerous, and almost always adopted. The line workers are usually the largest
group in an organization, and their thoughts and ideas are generated directly from
their day-to-day work. Administrators within an organization are less likely to effect
a technical innovation, because they are further from the actual work going on.
Additionally, as the professional level of the line workers increased, the amount and
level of implementation of innovation increased. As the professional level of the line
workers decreased, the level of technical innovation proposals from administrators
increased; however, the level of implementation decreased, as the ideas for technical
innovation were less relevant to the line workers. This is crucial, because
professional levels of line workers are difficult to maintain as budgets are cut and
salaries for the line workers are less competitive.
Damanpour and Evan (1984) also found that administrative innovations lead
to more technical innovations in the long run. For example, an administrative

13
innovation of changing a procedure may stimulate several technical innovations to
adapt to the change in procedure, in order to ensure efficiency and effectiveness.
Therefore, a balance of administrative and technical innovations also balances the
technical and social systems within an organization. This balance then leads to high
performance. Furthermore, an organizations ability to keep this balance is an
indicator of not only the level of innovation, but also an indicator of the level of
performance. Google Apps would be classified as a technical innovation, because it
directly affects what teachers are doing in the classroom.
Having defined the types of innovations, the structures that affect adoption
and implementation of innovation will be discussed. Organizations aim to maintain
or improve on high levels of performance. Changes in the structures or processes are
necessary to meet this goal. Different factors may contribute to the need or urgency
of these changes. However, these changes are necessary in order for an organization
to operate at maximum potential through adaptability (Damanpour & Evan, 1984).
As schools adapt to the increasing need to train students who will enter the STEM
fields, innovations in the classroom need to be adopted and implemented for optimal
operation.
Zaltman, Duncan and Holbeck (1973) argue that organizations need two
distinct structures to encourage innovation proposals or innovation adoption and
implementation. Organizations which encourage innovation proposals are typically
less formal, less centralized, and highly complex. These organizations contribute to
higher numbers of innovative ideas, but have lower rates of adoption and lower

14
levels of implementation. This is contrasted with organizations that are more formal,
centralized, and less complex. These organizations typically foster higher
frequencies of adoption and higher levels of implementation. These two distinct
structures are difficult, if not impossible, to allow to coexist within a single
organization. Thus, a struggle between encouraging idea generation or idea
implementation emerges. This study investigates HIDOE, which is a highly
centralized, highly formal organization regarding educational matters. However,
regarding technological matters, HIDOE is less centralized and less formal (Nguyen,
2008). A less centralized and less formal structure would make the adoption and
implementation of Google Apps quite low. However, if Google Apps were to
improve learning and have crossover into increased educational value, the more
formal, centralized, and less complex HIDOE could take this innovative idea and
support higher rates of adoption and implementation.
Google Apps is a technical innovation involving technology, which would
translate into educational value if Google Apps increased the number of students
entering STEM careers. In order to increase the number of students entering STEM
careers, classrooms must transform into environments where more students succeed
in STEM classes which occurs in classrooms that encourage collaboration.
Technology plays an important role in improving collaborative structures, which
involve learners beyond the school campus. Google Apps provides the necessary
tools to facilitate collaboration beyond the school campus. Although Google Apps

15
helps to facilitate collaboration, the meaning and importance of collaboration in a
knowledge creation community must first be examined.

The Meaning and Importance of Collaboration
Prior to a discussion of using technology as a tool for collaboration, a
discussion about what collaboration is will be presented. Polenske (2004) examined
how firms manage the delicate relationship between cooperation, collaboration, and
competition, to compete in a global economy. The author proposes that
collaboration and cooperation are similar collective behaviors, which are often
thought of as synonymous. However, the author stresses that collaboration and
cooperation should be classified as two separate forms of behavior. On one hand,
collaboration involves the direct participation by two or more actors in designing,
producing and/or marketing a product (process) (p. 1031). On the other hand,
cooperation is when two or more actors agree through formal or informal
arrangements to share information, support, managerial, and technical training,
supply capital, and/or provide market information (p. 1031). The authors
illustration of the differences between collaboration and cooperation provides insight
as to the different reasons education might utilize the two according to purpose.
Like Polenske, Dillenbourg (1999) also stresses that cooperative and
collaborative learning in classrooms should not be thought of as synonymous. The
author says that: In cooperation, partners split the work, solve sub-tasks individually

16
and then assemble the partial results into the final output. In collaboration, partners
do the work together (p. 8).
The reason for using either cooperation or collaboration primarily revolves
around the goals of a given classroom lesson. If the purpose of the lesson is to have
a product that is produced by learners working on separate parts according to ability,
then cooperation might be emphasized. However, if the purpose of the lesson is to
have two or more learners working together to create a product, then collaboration
would be emphasized.
Differentiating between cooperation and collaboration in the classroom
provides insight to reasons and purposes for emphasizing either of the two.
However, the scientific community may emphasize collaboration, because without
collaboration, specialized research may not occur. In a study of collaboration
between international scientists, Wagner, Brahmakalum, Jackson, Yoda, and Wong
(2001) found that scientists had a scientific imperative to collaborate. Factors such
as expertise contributed to the motivation of scientists to collaborate beyond their
countrys borders. Scientific experts may be attracted to certain parts of the world
where there are unique research opportunities. Local experts at these unique
locations may have a higher level of understanding of the research opportunities,
because they have lived in the area and have local knowledge. The knowledge and
opportunity afforded by the local experts would contribute to the authors idea of
creating a scientific imperative to collaborate. Through collaboration, external
scientists would be able to depend on local experts to gain more knowledge about a

17
subject. In turn, the local experts would be able to depend on external scientists for
expertise and resources not available locally. The benefits gained by collective
behaviors, in both the scientific community and business world, motivate
participation in collaborative behaviors.
As mentioned in the opening paragraph of Chapter One, classrooms of today,
despite years of attempts at reform, still remain more similar than dissimilar to pre-
reform classrooms (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008; Stigler, Gallimore, &
Hiebert, 2000). Transforming classrooms to realize the potential of producing more
students entering STEM careers could be accomplished through collaboration. One
example of collaboration transforming classrooms is the idea of computer supported
collaborative learning (CSCL). CSCL offers tools and means for teachers to
transform their classrooms into knowledge creation communities (Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 2006). Knowledge creation communities provide learners with the
opportunity to gain knowledge of a particular area of study. Scardamalia and
Bereiter emphasize that knowledge of something should not be confused with
knowledge about something. For example, knowledge about driving a car would
include being able to state all of the rules and procedures for driving a car. However,
knowledge of driving a car would include being able to articulate the nuances of
driving a car, which could only be gained by actually driving a car. Sadly,
classrooms are dominated with practices that emphasize learning knowledge about
something. Google Apps provides the tools necessary to implement CSCL, which
creates the opportunity to transform classrooms into knowledge creating

18
communities, which emphasize knowledge of something over knowledge about
something.
Now that the meaning and importance of collaboration has been examined,
this chapter will next examine the reasons for implementing technology, technology
emerging as a tool for collaboration, cloud computing as a technology, and cloud
computing as a tool for collaboration.

Reasons For Implementing Technology
Cuban (1993) cites three main causes for implementing technology in
schools, which are used by advocates of technology to encourage the implementation
of technology in schools. The first cause is the fear that students will not be prepared
for the technological world of tomorrow. As the workplace becomes dominated by
advanced communication tools involving technology, adults entering the workforce
need to be proficient with technological tools. Advocates of technology see schools
as needing to prepare students for this workplace in the future.
The second cause Cuban sees for implementing technology in schools is the
neoprogressive value of students constructing knowledge through active learning.
These neoprogressive reformers want to move schools away from organizations
where learners are asked to absorb enormous amounts of knowledge unconnected to
daily life. The introduction of technology would bridge the old view with the new
view of education and advance the reform progress.

19
The third cause is the impulse for productivity. Technology allows for
efficient teaching and learning. Being able to learn more in less time has historically
been a goal for education. When this goal is tied with technology, the results are
thought to be limitless. However, Cuban also indicates that the same beliefs were
held about the overhead projector, which was thought to narrow the gap between
teaching and learning.
Hedlund (2011) echoes Cubans finding that there is often a struggle when
implementing computers as a productivity tool in the classroom. Former
pedagogical practices applied using computers can actually be less efficient than
without computers. Hedlund goes on to say that pedagogical practices need to be
modified in order to make computers effective tools within the classroom. He
further describes that teachers in the study saw the computer as something that is not
designed for classroom use. Instead, a belief formed that it came from the corporate
or leisure world, and was not compatible with the classroom. However, he posits
that with the possibility of breaking down the barriers of a traditional classroom, the
difference between leisure and business is only a click away.
Innovative technological implementation strategies are stifled not only in K-
12 education, but also in higher education. Pettit and Kukulska-Hulme (2011)
concluded that, although innovative implementation of technology was a goal of
technological implementation, the most obvious evidence of technology
implementation was that students have better access to information. Although this
evidence represents an advantage gained by technology implementation, it is hardly

20
innovative. The benefits and enthusiasm gained with Web 2.0 technologies, such as
Facebook, are difficult to implement within formal education. The expectations of
instructors and professors hardly changed. The implementation of technology did
not automatically transform the product into a Web 2.0 product.
An example of pedagogical change with the use of technology is evidenced
by Gee (2003). The author introduces the concept of using principles in video games
to improve student learning. Principles of on demand and just in time are
examples of what makes video games popular. Related to learning, if classrooms
were altered to include these principles, on demand learning and just in time
learning would create an ideal environment for students to be motivated to persevere
through confusion and initial discomfort with the intended learning concepts.
Gee also points to the ability of video games to adjust to a players outer edge
of competence, in order to make the playability of a game appropriate for the player.
In the classroom, the zone of proximal development is where students are at their
optimum potential for learning. If classrooms were to establish this zone for every
child, more learning would occur. As games and classrooms begin to merge, Gee
sees playing as character as relevant for both environments. As students enter
science classrooms, they learn best if they start to act and talk as scientists. In this
sense, a school that uses the principles found in video games may create better
environments for preparing students for the workplace than current school
classrooms.

21
Technology Emerging as a Tool for Collaboration
According to Johnson and Johnson (1996), before the 1990s computer
research in education primarily dealt with improving single learner achievement
through the use of computer aided technologies. Software developers designed
computer programs to help the individual achieve higher levels of understanding
through individualized, one-to-one computing. However, identifying and
accommodating individual needs proved difficult to accomplish, and early computer
promises were difficult to fulfill. This was compounded by the absence of social
interaction and the high costs of providing every child with a computer.
Additionally, as classrooms became connected to the Internet, teachers were faced
with the challenge of having computers that were connected to a network of other
computers.
Educators who were early adopters of networked technology struggled with
how to use the technology for practical and effective uses (Roschelle, Vahey, Tatar,
Kaput, & Hegedus, 2003). Although classrooms had Internet access, technology-
assisted collaboration occurred only within the classroom. Graphing calculators and
clickers were examples of this technology, which allowed for students and
teachers to collaborate on class assignments. These assignments allowed messaging
and polls to be utilized by the teacher, and interaction beyond the classroom was
limited.
Wallace (2004) found that teachers were willing to use the Internet as a tool
in the classroom, but did not assess the actual work that was done on the Internet.

22
Rather, traditional means were used to assess the final product, which may have been
contributed to by research from the Internet. The interaction between the features of
the Internet and the process of teaching provides for an atmosphere with a high
potential for successes and challenges. The result is that teachers alter their
pedagogical practices, which may help or hurt a childs success. Teachers level of
pedagogical content knowledge directly affects the chances for success. The more
teachers know about how to teach a subject, the more likely it is that they will be
able to use the Internet as an effective instructional tool. For the most part, teachers
have been left with an instructional tool which they have been charged to figure out
how to use, with little or no support for how to use it effectively.
Becker and Anderson (1999) found that there are three types of teachers more
likely to use the Internet in their classrooms: teachers who are younger; teachers who
are leaders in their profession; and teachers with constructivist-based pedagogical
beliefs. The authors concede that the age factor may diminish over time, but at the
time of the study, teachers who were younger were more familiar with the
technology. Thus, their age was a major factor.
The second factor of teacher leadership pertains to the shared enthusiasm for
using a different instructional tool in the classroom. The enthusiasm shared by
teachers is thought to encourage more Internet use in the classrooms. As more
teachers use the Internet, more contact time and dialog between colleagues leads to a
better understanding of how to use Internet in the classrooms. This factor is

23
interesting, because the frequent informal contact between teachers seems to increase
the level of implementation.
The third, and perhaps most important factor, relates to certain beliefs
teachers possess about learning. The Internet lifts many barriers around the
traditional textbook-based curriculum, and allows teachers and students to explore a
vast amount of information readily accessible from within a classroom. Teachers
who have constructivist beliefs about education would more likely value this
seemingly limitless amount of information. However, teachers who prefer a
standardized and prescribed lesson may view the Internet as many uncontrolled
variables, which would not benefit their classroom. Further, the authors speculate
that providing the Internet to textbook-based teachers would not necessarily
encourage improved pedagogical practices.
Another form of technology being used as a tool for collaboration is video
gaming culture. Gee (2003) points to online gamers creating distributed and
dispersed knowledge in a community. Online gamers create levels, which allow
others in the community to face challenges and complete missions which would
otherwise not be available without the community collaborating on a project.
Relating this to the classroom, Sheldon (2011) takes the principles behind
multiplayer gaming environments to create classrooms where content is taught
through a role-playing game environment. Learners within the gaming environment
work together, motivated to accomplish tasks not only to earn points, but also to
achieve a common goal. Sheldon gives an example of a middle school classroom

24
utilizing the tools in Google Apps to create a multiplayer gaming environment.
These tools help to facilitate the collaboration of students to achieve a common goal.
A content-driven, textbook-based curriculum can no longer be the norm
within modern classrooms. The process of producing and sharing content shifts from
the teacher as the primary content provider (one-many), to the students producing
content and sharing with others (many-many) (Britain, 2011). The idea of students
collaborating on a document or project is greatly aided by technology, which also
enables sharing between students. More specifically, Google Apps provides the
means of producing, collaborating and sharing this content for all to consume.

Cloud Computing as a Technology
The fact that schools currently have the potential to construct knowledge
through social learning should not be ignored. Innovative solutions for realizing this
potential could include something as small as providing the tools for collaboration.
Brown and Adler (2008) make the distinction between learning about a subject and
learning to be a full participant in a subject. Cloud computing allows students to
socially construct knowledge and learn to be part of worldwide community of
learners. Instead of learning about an earthquake in another country, students can
participate in earthquake relief efforts with people in that country and other
countries. Being an active participant allows for deeper understanding about a
subject. Adding to this point, Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) would argue that

25
cloud computing is also necessary to participate in the advancement of knowledge
within the knowledge building world.
The opportunity for global participation on a project mimics actual projects
being performed by actual scientists. For example, access to powerful telescopes can
be difficult. Scientists distant from telescopes collaborate with scientists near to
telescopes in order to explore space. Students can also participate in this form of
collaborative project with the aid of computers and the Internet.
Google Apps is a form of cloud computing, which allows users to collaborate
using various tools. Google Apps is a Software as a Service (SaaS) application
which delivers functionality to the user through the Internet. Google Apps allows for
out-of-the-box usage, where minimal configuration is needed from the user end.
Additionally, Google Apps can be deployed to an organization with minimal
configuration by the network administrator (Sultan, 2010).
Weinghardt, Anandasivam, Blau, and Stober (2009) argue that cloud
computing is not a new paradigm, but rather a combination of widely used
technologies that are integrated together. The authors argue that the integration of
these technologies does not provide the user with more functionality. However, the
authors ignore the potential for collaboration with multiple users at the same time.
Combining localized software may provide the same functionality as cloud
computing, but it could not provide the potential for collaboration beyond the walls
of a room.


26
Cloud Computing as a Tool for Collaboration
The development of academic articles through traditional means could
require months of physically visiting a library to build a bibliographic survey of the
literature for a project. Once complete, these findings would be exclusively in the
hands of the creator. With the introduction of cloud computing and specifically
Google Apps the real time collaboration of many individuals working on the same
project goal could be reduced to weeks or even hours. During the collaboration time,
the work could be accessible to anybody in the world (Hall, Nousala, & Vines,
2010).
Kanuka and Anderson (1998) studied knowledge construction in an online
forum. Their findings show that the majority of online interactions occurred at the
social interaction phase. This phase includes the casual talk and communication
usually not associated with knowledge construction. Online interactions occurring at
the social discord phase, which requires a negotiation of meaning, were limited. The
authors posit that the textual environment of the online forums could not compete
with face-to-face conversations, which encourage the negotiation of meaning.
Additionally, the focus of the online forums did not demand deep understanding of
the content. Thus, online interaction did not guarantee knowledge construction, but
the potential for knowledge construction does exist.
MacDonald (2002) studied online collaborative environments where students
were expected to complete assignments with other students. Actual collaboration
occurred at a higher frequency when the act of collaboration was assessed.

27
Additionally, the quality of the product was actually higher when composed in an
online environment. Another contributing factor is if an assignment is isolated as a
single collaborative project, while the bulk of the class is individually assessed. This
may lead to students being less enthusiastic about collaborative projects, because
they must rely on fellow students to maintain individual grade point averages.
MacDonald points to the transcript or online record of activities which is kept
during the online collaboration activity. This transcript is significant, since it keeps
track of who contributed what, and how much. More importantly, the record can be
reviewed for evidence of negotiation of meaning and conflicting points of view.
This is important, because students can freely participate in contradicting each other
by revising what the other has written, but the online transcript can keep a complete
record allowing reversion back to prior revisions.
Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson (1997) found that current means of
assessing online interactions tend to focus on the parts, or the individual posts of
members within a community trying to solve a problem. The authors developed an
assessment instrument which focuses on the whole product which the community
created. Although the assessment of the parts is important, the outcome from the
community working together online defines the success of the group. Instead of
trying to claim that collaboration and knowledge construction is occurring, because
individuals contributed to a whole solution, the developed assessment sees the
patterns and outcomes which formed the solution.

28
Lee, Chan, and van Aalst (2006) studied how students were assessed in
collaborative environments. Students were allowed to post notes of ideas and
thoughts to an online bulletin board. The students could see each others notes and
were encouraged to use and build off of each others ideas. The authors were
concerned with problems typically associated with collaborative environments,
where students participated as a group but were assessed as individuals. The authors
set up the assessments to value content and inquiry. The value placed on inquiry
emphasized the process which the students went through to build knowledge as a
group. Further, students were explicitly taught how to interact through online
discourse, which facilitated the knowledge construction process. The end portfolio
documented their process and their analysis of the discourse. The authors concluded
that learning must be aligned with assessment in order to promote knowledge
construction.
Online collaboration tools exist in the corporate world also. Majchrzak,
Wagner, and Yates (2006) studied corporate wiki user behavior. Corporate wikis are
collaboration tools used to encourage collaboration within and between private
organizations. The authors sought to investigate if wikis were sustainable, and what
types of benefits wikis provided for users. The authors found that wikis were
sustainable depending on the length of existence, the number of participants, and the
frequency of access. As long as people were reading and contributing to a wiki, the
wiki would continue to exist. The authors also found that benefits to participation in
corporate wikis included enhanced reputation, making work easier, and improving

29
processes within an organization. However, not all wikis provided the same benefits.
Wikis that involved tasks requiring novel solutions were more likely to provide
benefits than wikis which involved routine tasks. The tools within Google Apps can
be thought of as a wiki, where contributors are able to contribute to a common
document like contributors to a wiki.
Networked computers and the Internet tore down the barriers between the
classroom and the world outside of school. Through the use of the Internet, cloud
computing emerged as a possible tool for schools to use. Additionally, cloud
computing promotes collaboration, which is necessary for the goals of knowledge
construction and knowledge advancement. The tools for collaboration are available
to teachers, but classrooms are still not valuing collaboration. The next section of
this literature review will examine the barriers to innovation which may hinder the
use of technological tools.

Barriers to Innovation
As previously mentioned, numerous educational innovations have been
adopted within the education system. However, somewhere between adoption and
implementation, innovations are likely to disappear or change radically (Gross,
Giaquinta, & Bernstein, 1971; Goodlad, 1969). The next section of this review will
examine the barriers to innovation in education.
Pincus (1974) differentiates public education from other organizations, as not
having competitive market forces, which generally work toward economic and social

30
improvement, depending on the decisions made by consumers and producers. The
author refers to the marketplace existing in public education as the institutional
marketplace. Pincus notes that expectations in the institutional marketplace are
different from those in the competitive marketplace. Further, profitability cannot be
the measure of success of innovations in the institutional marketplace. However, the
institutional marketplace has an equally rational marketplace protocol of checks and
balances. For example, schools must attract resources to meet the demands of
various stakeholders, including teachers, administrators and students. Next, schools
also need to be cognizant of not introducing change that may harm the various
interests of stakeholders. Finally, society along with stakeholders values
progress through new technologies and improved outcomes. Pincus concludes that
these different checks and balances contribute to public education adopting
innovations that are less disruptive, and safer to adopt or abandon.
The checks and balances of the institutional marketplace that Pincus outlines
will serve as a framework for examples of barriers to innovation in public education.
These examples are categorized by: general technological barriers, pedagogical
barriers, and financial barriers. All of these barriers exist within HIDOE, and are
factors which hinder the implementation of Google Apps.

General Technological Barriers
In order to meet the demands of increasing the amount of technology in
schools, schools have increased spending on technology (Christensen, Horn, &

31
Johnson, 2008). However, Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, and Byers (2002) observed that
(lack of) teacher proficiency with technology served as a barrier to implementing
technology innovation in the classroom. In order for students to utilize technology
tools, a string of successful technology steps need to occur: the network must be
ready; the computers must turn on and connect to the network; the software on the
computer must start up correctly; and the browser must display the webpage
correctly. If any of these steps fail to function properly, students are not able to
utilize the technology tools. Added to this, the paradigm shift of being in the cloud
proves to be another complicating layer. A teachers technology proficiency
determines if he or she is able to troubleshoot and solve the problems successfully.
Past research also delved into teacher technology use. Bebell, Russell, and
ODwyer (2004) argue that past research in educational technology may not have
provided informative data, because researchers may have not known how teachers
were using technology. The authors believe that a multi-facted approach is
necessary to measure teachers use of technology, which includes not just whether or
not a technology is being used, but also how a teacher is using technology, and for
what purposes. Teacher technology use is further complicated by the variety of
technologies and varied ways that technologies can be used. Trying to measure a
variety of technology uses with a single measure limits the information that can be
discovered.
Technological barriers outside of the classroom relate closely to the
previously mentioned check and balance of not harming the interests of various

32
stakeholders (Pincus, 1974). The risks involved with technology, and cloud
computing specifically, may lead public education to reject its use.
Assink (2006) found that while internal and external forces encourage
innovative exploration, internal forces that resist change often prevent innovation.
Assink grouped these internal forces into five clusters, one of which involves the
attitudes within an organization. An organizations inability to make a distinction
between meaningful risk and meaningless risk creates a risk-averse climate, in which
the mere introduction of change is inhibited by the fear of taking the risk necessary
for change.
Sultan (2010) cited the top two concerns with respect to adopting cloud
computing as data privacy and security. Education institutions may need to wait
until lawmakers figure out the implications and issues behind the use of cloud
computing. Until then, cloud users and providers will need to be creative in their
adoption of cloud computing to overcome such hurdles. This creativity may include
taking a meaningful risk to implement cloud computing.
Security is often downplayed by cloud providers. Talbot (2009) noted that
cloud providers point to the risk of trusting many different individual companies to
keep something secure, versus trusting them Google, for example to keep
many different companies data private and secure. Additionally, USB sticks are
easily lost by employees who need to transfer data from one computer to another.
The risk associated with cloud computing involves trusting one company, which may

33
lose customers, versus trusting many different individuals within a company to
follow protocols.
Another risk of cloud computing is data lock. Cloud providers may initially
charge nothing, or very little, to house and provide access to information. If the
company decides later to increase the fee for storage, customers might be forced to
pay higher prices without the ability to move the data. Large corporations may
consider a risk of loss of sales and damage to customer satisfaction as a meaningful
risk. However, educational institutions, which are used to sporadic service or no
service at all, may disregard these factors and be more likely to adopt such services
(Sultan, 2010).
Prior to this study, HIDOE faced multiple barriers to the implementation of
Google Apps, which encompass the technological barriers introduced previously. A
brief history of the implementation of Google Apps in HIDOE will now be provided,
to give specific examples of the general technological barriers that HIDOE
encountered. Through an interview with a state technology administrator, in charge
of network security, a brief history of using external email providers, such as Gmail,
was revealed.
At one time, HIDOE managed its email needs using its own server the
Makani email server. School-level technology coordinators would email the state-
level technology administrator a list of students requesting email accounts. The
state-level technology administrator would then create accounts and passwords for
the students, and email back the school-level technology coordinator a list of these

34
accounts. The hardware to run this email server cost HIDOE $50,000, plus an
annual renewal of license fee for $5,000. According to best practices, this server
needed to be replaced every three years. The time required to administer the server
added to the total cost to HIDOE of managing and housing student email accounts.
The former assistant superintendent of technology made the decision to discontinue
the practice of providing email to students. The reasons mostly pointed to budgetary
constraints and the labor involved in maintaining this server. Schools were left to
provide email to their students by setting up their own email servers or by using
external email providers.
Popular and free email service providers like Hotmail, Yahoo, and Google
emerged as solutions for schools to implement student email. This practice was
questioned, because there was no ability for schools to centrally monitor emails or
investigate misuse. Another reason utilizing free email providers was questioned
was the restrictive policies these external email providers forced users to agree to.
One school in particular had a complaint lodged against them regarding the
schoolwide use of Gmail. The complaint claimed that students were forced to agree
to Googles Terms of Service (TOS), and that children under 18 were agreeing to a
legally binding agreement. Googles TOS included the line: You may not use the
Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a
binding contract with Google.... Since all students at this school were under the age
of 18, the complaint claimed that they could not use Google services.

35
This school sought an alternative to Google, however many free email
services had similar TOS agreements. Google Apps for Education was an emerging
service, which Google provided free of charge to schools. In the Google Apps for
Education TOS, the clause forbidding the use of Google services if not of legal age
was omitted. As a result, the school discontinued the practice of having students
sign up for their own Gmail accounts. Instead, the school gave students Google
Education Gmail accounts, and the complaint was withdrawn. The lesson learned
from this complaint was that further investigation was needed for schools providing
email addresses to students.
Another state-level technology administrator, in charge of data security, was
interviewed regarding external email providers. He revealed that representatives
from both Google Apps for Education and Microsofts Live@edu were interviewed
regarding external email services. Both offered free cloud-based Software as a
Service (SaaS), with similar features including email. The looming problem of
schools not having a solution for student email, and the existence of two options for
free email, both contributed to the state technology office offering facilitation for
setting up either service for schools. As a result, one school elected to sign up for
Microsoft Live@edu, and 84 schools signed up for Google Apps for Education an
unknown number of schools might have independently signed up for Google Apps
for Education. The cause of the imbalance was unknown.
These general technological barriers that HIDOE encountered provide insight
into what may hinder the implementation of Google Apps in education.

36
Pedagogical Barriers
Another barrier to technology implementation is that, although teachers
utilize online collaboration tools, they also often attempt to fit traditional
pedagogical practices into the online environment. Marginal use of computers is less
due to lack of funds, ill-prepared teachers, or risk-averse administrators, and more
due to the dominant cultural beliefs in education. The dominant cultural belief in
education that teaching is telling and learning is listening hampers the spread of
technological implementation in schools. Further, age-graded schools, agreed-upon
knowledge through textbooks, and bell schedules which limit the amount of time for
interaction, all contribute to perpetuation of these cultural beliefs. Breaking down
these cultural beliefs is essential if education is to use technology in innovative ways,
rather than using technology within the existing, traditional structures, and merely
enhancing, not changing, the educational experience (Henri, 1992; Cuban, 1993).
Prior studies of online collaboration have focused on tools such as forums,
which may have limited collaborative efforts (Macdonald, 2002; Majchrzak,
Wagner, & Yates, 2006). Forums reproduce a bulletin board environment where
learners are able to post ideas, and other learners can see and respond to the posts.
This model may limit collaboration because, although each student can contribute to
a bulletin board, the final document may not have been completed in a collaborative
environment. Google Docs allows for online collaboration on a common document.
Changes to the document are tracked and can be accessed without risk of losing
changes. This is significant, because collaborators can freely revise the document

37
without fear of losing anyones thoughts or ideas. Forums, in contrast, do not allow
for manipulation of a common document, and typically prevent users from changing
posts made by others. This lack of flexibility is prohibitive when asking people to
collaborate on a common product.
Rourke and Kanuka (2007) found barriers to online collaboration which
included competitive tendencies when participating in online discussions. In the
authors study, students were encouraged to participate in online discussions, where
critical discourse was supposed to occur. However, students had differing views as
to how to conduct themselves in the online environment. When opposing views
were posted, certain students reacted to this as a personal attack. This problem was
exacerbated by students thinking that participation in online discussion was an
obstacle to getting to the final product. Some students did not view the online
discourse as a valuable means to reaching a common answer. Instead, these students
viewed online postings as a means to get a participation grade. The authors propose
more structure, and allowing time for critical discourse to appear. However, the very
medium of posting to forums may have contributed to the behaviors exhibited by the
students. As mentioned before, students posting to an online bulletin board are not
explicitly working on the same document. The bulletin board is merely a means to
post ideas and opinions, and when posts contradict each other there is no way to
blend the conflicting ideas. Instead of contributing to a collaborative final product,
the students were contributing to a bulletin board, which led to an individual product.

38
Russel and Haney (2000) offer a proposal for limiting students access to
technology, with the hope of improving high-stakes pencil and paper test scores.
The belief is that if students increase the amount of time using paper and pencil to
write, and decrease the amount of time writing on a computer, test scores would go
up. Although this proposal was the first, and the least recommended, the authors cite
school districts where this purposeful reduction of technology was implemented with
success.
Chan (2011) sees the gap between CSCL research and classroom practices
remaining wide. Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2003) define two pitfalls which
hamper collaboration and knowledge construction in CSCL: taking for granted that
individuals interact simply because the technology allows them to; and neglecting
the social dimension of the desired interaction. The first pitfall highlights that
technology provides the possibility for two or more people to interact with each
other. Without technology, people not located in the same room cannot interact with
each other. With the introduction of technology, these people can interact. In other
words, technology is necessary for people not co-located to interact with each other,
but it is not sufficient for interaction to occur.
The second pitfall deals with CSCL environments which ignore the social
aspects of the task, before being executed. Often, educational tasks emphasize the
learning goal which is expected after a task is accomplished. In a CSCL
environment, the learning goal, although important, also needs to account for the
social aspect. Face-to-face interactions also require this social aspect. Educators

39
would not expect students in a class to accomplish tasks without first getting to know
each other. A CSCL environment must establish a sense of community before
learning tasks can be performed. The authors conclude that in order for CSCL
environments to accomplish their goals these two pitfalls need to be addressed, and
also suggest increasing the amount of interaction by incorporating off-task activities,
which encourage non-formal interaction between group participants.
As mentioned previously, limitations to the implementation of technology in
education are more a function of teachers not changing pedagogical practices than
financial reasons (Cuban, 1993). The next section of this literature review studies
cost-saving opportunities through the replacement of costly software licenses.

Financial Barriers
Trying to compare innovation in public schools with innovation in private
firms assumes that the two are based on a market, with supply and demand.
However, public schools usually have clients who are mandated to attend their
district school, so traditional market pressures affect them to a lesser extent (Pincus,
1974). Pincus asserts that the lack of market-based structures means that public
education is more likely than private firms to adopt cost-raising innovations and less
likely to adopt cost-reducing innovations. This unintuitive assertion is clarified by
the author based on the fact that public education lacks the competitive marketplace
to test the value of innovation. As long as public education officials think that an
innovation is good, and funding sources allow for it, cost-raising innovations

40
like smaller class sizes will be adopted. Exceptions to schools being less likely to
adopt cost-reducing innovations would occur if the money saved could be used for
other purposes.
One example of public education being more likely to adopt a cost-increasing
innovation is using an office productivity suite, such as Microsoft (MS) Office.
Schools purchase MS Office at a discounted price of $50 per license. This is a
drastic discount from the $400 retail price tag usually associated with an off-the-
shelf purchase of this product, but replacing Microsoft Office with Google Apps
would eliminate the license entirely. However, the move to Google Apps has not
been rapid within HIDOE.
Another example of public education, and specifically HIDOE, using a cost-
increasing innovation is the use of an at-cost collaboration and email system
Lotus Notes. Lotus Notes is robust cloud computing software, which, much like
Google Apps, provides document collaboration and email. However, HIDOE pays a
licensing fee for teachers and administrators to use Lotus Notes. Replacement of
Lotus Notes with Google Apps is again not widespread.
These examples illustrate what Pincus (1974) would describe as educational
officials thinking that an innovation is good, where the funding sources allow for
an at-cost solution (MS Office and Lotus Notes) to be adopted. There are no
marketplace pressures to question or influence the adoption of a cost-reducing
alternative to MS Office and Lotus Notes. Further, Pincus predicts that schools

41
would adopt a cost-reducing alternative if the cost savings could be spent on
something else within the schools.
Moving to Google Apps may have hidden costs which contribute to
education having a tendency to adopt cost-increasing innovations. Pfaffman (2007)
argues that the initial cost of moving from MS Office to Google Apps may be high,
because of the training involved with making this shift. If schools were to adopt new
software, training for this software would also need to be conducted. However, any
savings from staying with MS Office is short lived, once a new version of MS Office
emerges. For example, the change from MS Office 2003 to MS Office 2007 was so
drastic that companies needed to train employees on how to use the new version.
The potential cost savings of staying with an at-cost product, to save on training
costs, are lost because Microsoft historically changes products significantly through
version updates.
Another potential cost of adopting Google Apps is the money involved in
migrating from the current collaboration and email system. Herrick (2009) studied
Colorado State Universitys implementation of Google Apps for Education. Overall,
the implementation of Google Apps at CSU is considered a success, as it contributes
to the existing collaborative and communication structures. However, CSU faced
challenges related to communication, migration techniques, and documentation.
CSU moved from an aging email system to the email and collaboration suite of
Google Apps. Communication to users regarding the change from the old email
system to Google Apps took the form of weekly emails. CSU provided an opt-in

42
policy so that if notifications were ignored, users would not be forced to switch.
Despite the notifications and opt-in policy, most affected users claimed ignorance of
the actual switch.
Herrick also notes that each account took seven seconds to migrate from the
old email system to Google Apps. Although this does not seem very long, the
migration of over 25,000 accounts proved to be more time consuming than expected.
In retrospect, CSUs technology department could have reduced the amount of time
per account by changing some techniques, in particular by creating accounts ahead of
time, before the migration occurred.
Herrick also identified that the Google Apps documentation, although
thorough and clear, does not keep up with the rapid upgrades that Google executes.
Typical SaaS systems push out product features through discrete releases. However,
Google has a tendency to keep released products in beta version, which implies an
unfinished product. Customers of Google Apps enjoy the new and innovative tools
through perpetual beta versions of products, but documentation of these upgrades
and releases does not keep up. Upgrades and improvements may alter the workflow
of particular products, while users are not able to resolve issues which may arise.
These examples of the potential costs to education of adopting Google Apps
may be incurred particularly at the beginning of implementation, but the long-term
savings are greater.
Access to technology is another financial barrier which may hinder the
implementation of Google Apps. Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, and Soloway (2003) agree

43
with naysayers of technology education who complain that technology has had very
little impact on improving teaching and learning. However, Norris et al. argue that
basic lack of access to computers is the direct cause of technology not having an
impact on education, and overshadows all other causes.
Another perspective on technology is the idea of equal access versus easy
access. Zhao et al. (2002) argue that equal access occurs where every teacher has
equal opportunity to sign up for a computer lab. Easy access would be when every
child could access a computer at any time of the school day; this could be realized by
a school with the emergence of netbooks costing less than $300. As students gain
easy access to computers, the impact of technology in education may be realized.
This study examines how Google Apps is improving collaboration within
HIDOE. Additionally, it examines factors which prevent the implementation of
Google Apps. This literature review has shed light on how technology can improve
collaboration, and barriers which may prevent the implementation of technology.


44
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to examine how the implementation of Google
Apps has improved collaborative structures in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools. Constructivist theorists emphasize the importance of learners working to
construct knowledge or advance knowledge through collaborative structures. With
the introduction of Google Apps, students are able to create and share documents
that all students and teachers can view or edit. This technological tool offers
limitless opportunities for collaboration within, as well as beyond, school.
Traditional educational structures limit opportunities for collaboration, and
thus knowledge construction is more the exception than the norm. By showing how
Google Apps improves collaborative structures, teachers, school-level
administrators, and district-level administrators may be able to utilize technological
tools to increase collaborative structures within HIDOE. Increasing collaborative
structures will hopefully benefit students by increasing knowledge advancement.
This chapter describes the studys sampling procedure, population, and
instrumentation, and the procedures for data collection and analysis.

Research Questions
1. How is Google Apps improving collaboration among faculty, students,
and external subject area experts in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools?

45
2. What hinders the implementation of Google Apps in HIDOE elementary
and middle schools?

Research Design
It was considered that examining how Google Apps improves collaborative
structures in HIDOE elementary and middle schools would provide insight as to how
schools use technology to increase knowledge construction. To study this
innovation, qualitative research methods were used. Qualitative research seeks to
understand and answer important questions through the gathering of information.
The qualitative design method of purposeful sampling was used, which involves
utilizing case studies selected because they are examples of the innovation being
studied (Patton, 2002). Through purposeful sampling, formative evaluation can
serve the purpose of improving a specific program or product at a specific point in
time.
This qualitative study began with the selection of schools using Google Apps.
Next, the researcher designed interviews for state-level technology administrators,
school-level administrators, and school-level technology coordinators, based on the
literature in Chapter Two. Then, a questionnaire was designed for teachers using
Google Apps.


46
Sample and Population
This qualitative study utilized criterion sampling, focused on five schools in
HIDOE using Google Apps. Patton (2002) describes criterion sampling as selecting
cases where certain criteria are met. The criterion for schools in this study was that
they were using Google Apps with students and teachers.
A preliminary email survey was sent three times, over a period of three
months, to technology coordinators throughout the state. This survey asked if a
school had a Google Apps for Education account, and, if so, who within the school
was using Google Apps. A total of 19 surveys were returned. Eight schools
surveyed responded that they did not have a Google Apps for Education account.
Eleven schools five elementary schools, five middle schools, and one K-12 school
were considered qualified for this study because they were actually using Google
Apps with teachers and students.
Two of the schools were charter schools. One of the charter schools required
authorization from its local school board. The researcher was interviewed by the
local school boards president, and was given approval to conduct the study.
However, the school boards president informed the researcher that the principal at
this charter school had recently been removed. Therefore, the removed principal
could not participate in the study.
A general recruitment letter was sent to all 11 schools. A follow-up email
was sent weekly, for a period of four weeks, if there was no response. Five
principals and one temporary assignment principal agreed to participate in the study,

47
and five principals were unwilling to participate. Six schools three elementary
schools, two middle schools, and one K-12 school participated in this study. Five
of the six schools were located on the island of Oahu, and one of the schools was
located on the island of Hawaii. The following paragraphs will provide a brief
description of each school.
School A is a public conversion charter school servicing K-12 students.
Google Apps is available for middle and high school students. For the purposes of
this study, only middle school responses were collected and analyzed. All teachers
in the middle school used Google Apps Gmail as their primary school email. There
are approximately 170 students in the middle school, with 23 teachers that teach at
least one middle school course.
School B is a public conversion charter school servicing students in grades 6
through 8, and is located on the island of Hawaii. Google Apps is available to all
students at the school. All teachers at the school use Gmail as their primary school
email. There are 270 students and 23 teachers.
School C is a public school servicing students in grades 6 through 8. Google
Apps is available to all students at the school. All teachers use Lotus Notes as their
primary school email. There are 960 students and 61 teachers.
School D is a public school servicing students in kindergarten through grade
5. Google Apps is available only to students in the student government class and the
gifted and talented class. All teachers have access to Google Apps, but use Lotus
Notes as their primary school email. There are 300 students and 21 teachers.

48
School E is a public school servicing students in kindergarten through grade
5. Google Apps is available only to students in grades 4 and 5. All teachers use
Gmail as their primary school email. There are 410 students and 26 teachers.
School F is a public school servicing students in kindergarten through grade
5. This elementary school was eliminated from the study, because the technology
coordinator interview revealed that neither teachers nor students were using Google
Apps.
General recruitment letters were sent to two state-level technology
administrators. One specialized in information security and the other specialized in
Internet services. Both agreed to participate in the study.
Data collection occurred from March 2012 through April 2012. During this
period, principals, at a time of their agreement, were asked to email the teacher
surveys to participants in the study. Two weeks after the initial email was sent to the
teachers, all principals emailed the teacher survey again as a follow up.
Additionally, interviews with principals, technology coordinators, and state-level
technology administrators were conducted. Audiotaped recordings of interviews
were transcribed verbatim, and teacher email surveys were collected.

Instrumentation
Two researcher-developed instruments were used in this study. The first
instrument was an interview, comprised of open-ended questions, for state-level
technology administrators, school-level administrators, and school-level technology

49
coordinators. The second instrument was a questionnaire designed for teachers using
Google Apps.
The interview protocol (see Appendix B and Appendix C) was comprised of
open-ended questions, which allowed the researcher to capture the points of view of
respondents without using predetermined categories (Patton, 2002). These questions
were posed to school principals, technology coordinators, and two state-level
technology administrators. The questions were similar, differing only when asking
about replacing MS Office and Lotus Notes with Google Apps. The protocol was
developed for a one-hour period.
The questionnaire was developed and adapted from the literature. The
questions focused on levels of collaboration and barriers to implementing Google
Apps (see Appendix A).

Data Analyses
The data were collected and organized for analysis. The organization
consisted of coding according to common themes that emerged. These themes
included examples of collaboration and barriers to implementing Google Apps.
The two instruments provided multiple reference points for combining the
methods and data, a process referred to as triangulation (Patton, 2002). The
interviews and questionnaires administered to the different role groups were
triangulated to provide a complete view by providing information from multiple
perspectives.

50
Analysis of the school-level interview data allowed the researcher to
determine how schools were using Google Apps to improve collaborative structures,
and what barriers were associated with implementing Google Apps. The teacher
surveys were analyzed and compared to the results of the interviews, to provide a
deeper understanding of what was actually happening in the classroom, and in the
wider school context.
Ethical considerations were taken into account. Participation in the study
was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Anonymity
of HIDOE personnel and their affiliated institutions was preserved. All guidelines of
the Internal Review Boards of the University of Southern California and HIDOE
were followed to ensure that ethical practices were maintained throughout the study.

Description of the Data
This qualitative study examined schools that were using Google Apps with
students and teachers. Data from online teacher surveys and interviews with state-
level technology administrators, principals, and technology coordinators were
collected. First, at the time of their agreement to participate in the study, principals
emailed the survey to all teachers. Two weeks after this initial email, principals
emailed the survey again as a follow-up. The teacher survey consisted of 23
questions about Google Apps use, the ability of Google Apps to improve work
processes and collaboration efficiency, how Google Apps makes work easier, and
any barriers to implementing Google Apps.

51
There were a total of 174 teachers at the five schools studied. Out of the 174
teachers, 74 surveys were returned to the researcher (42.41% response rate). Out of
the 74 responses, 44 teachers reported using Google Apps with students. All 74
surveys were reported and analyzed with respect to the schools implementation of
Google Apps. Only the 44 responses from teachers actually using Google Apps with
students were reported and analyzed with respect to the classroom.
These 44 teachers reported that students were using Google Apps to solve
problems, present information, produce pictures/artwork, produce graphs/charts,
produce multimedia projects, and produce web pages/sites. Solving problems and
presenting information were the top two most highly reported student classroom uses
of Google Apps. Additionally, these 44 teachers reported that quizzes and
assignments were being created and instruction was being delivered using Google
Apps. Of particular note is the fact that these 44 teachers also reported that students
were using the Internet to research information at twice the frequency with which
they used Google Apps to solve problems or present during class.
Second, the researcher also interviewed principals and technology
coordinators at the schools. School B had a temporary assignment principal, who
had no knowledge of the use of Google Apps at the school. Therefore, an interview
was not conducted with an administrator at this school.
Third, the researcher interviewed two state-level technology administrators.
One technology administrator specialized in information security, and the other
specialized in Internet services.

52
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS
The purpose of this study was to examine how the implementation of Google
Apps has improved collaborative structures in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools. Constructivist theorists emphasize the importance of learners working to
construct knowledge or advance knowledge through collaborative structures. With
the introduction of Google Apps, students are able to create and share documents
that all students and teachers can view or edit. This technological tool offers
limitless opportunities for collaboration within, as well as beyond school.
Traditional educational structures limit opportunities for collaboration, and
thus knowledge construction is more the exception than the norm. By showing how
Google Apps improves collaborative structures, teachers, school-level
administrators, and district-level administrators may be able to utilize technological
tools to increase collaborative structures within HIDOE. Increasing collaborative
structures will hopefully benefit students by increasing knowledge advancement.
This chapter will report the findings relevant to answering the following research
questions:
1. How is Google Apps improving collaboration among faculty and students
in HIDOE elementary and middle schools?
2. What hinders the implementation of Google Apps in HIDOE elementary
and middle schools?

53
In this chapter, survey data and interview data are reported and analyzed,
organized by research question. First, a brief summary of findings for both research
questions will be presented. Then, reports and analysis of interview data and survey
data will be organized by research question.

Summary of Findings
In response to research question one, the findings showed that a variety of
collaborative products were being created with Google Apps. A second finding was
that Gmail served as a viable alternative to Lotus Notes email. A third finding was
that Google Apps improved collaborative structures by improving work processes,
and collaboration efficiency through the use of common documents. A fourth
finding was that, although Google Apps enhanced the learning environment, there
was no evidence that Google Apps disrupted the learning environment through
significant pedagogical changes.
In response to research question two, the first finding was that there are
several barriers to implementing Google Apps. A second finding was that state-level
technology administrators have implemented administrative innovations to
encourage numerous technical innovations at the school level.
This section provided a brief summary of the findings with respect to the
research questions. The next section will report and analyze data from the interviews
and teacher surveys.


54
Findings Organized by Research Question
Research Question One: How is Google Apps improving collaboration among
faculty, students, and external subject area experts in HIDOE elementary and
middle schools?
Principal and technology coordinator (TC) interviews both revealed that a
variety of collaborative products were being created through the use of Google Apps.
Since Google Apps makes available a large number of tools, each school utilized
different tools for different purposes, and to varying degrees. Google Docs,
Spreadsheets, Forms, Gmail and Presentations, were all mentioned as tools used to
create products within every school.
The most prevalent use of Google Apps for Education was the email function
with students. All schools in the study utilized the email function commonly
known as Gmail with students. Email gives the students the potential to
communicate and collaborate with others through a widely used medium. As
mentioned in the section summarizing the history of Google Apps in HIDOE,
HIDOE does not have a formal email solution for students. Google Apps provides
an email solution for students, which complies with various federal and
organizational policies.
Gmail also became the email solution for adults at three of the five schools.
As schools began adopting Google Apps, some schools elected to use Gmail in place
of Lotus Notes email. School E was one of the public schools that switched their
adults from Lotus Notes to Gmail. The principal at School E made the decision to

55
switch the teachers to Gmail, ...because it makes it easier all around for teachers to
gain access to their email. A characteristic of Lotus Notes is that it requires specific
software to be loaded onto teacher workstations. Additionally, Lotus Notes IDs and
specific user configurations need to be associated with the users workstation. If a
computer does not have the Lotus Notes software loaded, or does not have the
correct ID and configuration, the user is not able to use the full functionality of his or
her email. In contrast, Gmail does not need specific software, nor does it need
special configurations specific to the workstation. Gmail only requires an Internet
connection and a current web browser. It should be noted that Lotus Notes does
have a web client which, much like Gmail, allows access from any computer with
Internet access and a current web browser. However, the functionality of this web
client is limited, and different from the workstation-based client. The difference in
functionality between the web client and the workstation client tends to discourage
use of the web client. Therefore, this principal opted to switch all adults to Gmail.
The technology coordinator at School E verified the principals claim that all
teachers were using Gmail in place of Lotus Notes. However, this technology
coordinator added that all teachers still needed to have access to a computer for
Lotus Notes databases, the functionality of which which could not be substituted in
Google Apps. These databases house documents such as official HIDOE memos.
Frequency of accessing these databases was lower than the accessing of email.
One of the charter schools in this study, School B, pays the $282 per year fee
to use Lotus Notes. As mentioned previously in the section covering the history of

56
Google Apps use in HIDOE, charter schools were required to pay a fee to use Lotus
Notes. However, like at School E, the teachers at School B use Gmail in place of
Lotus Notes email. The TC at School B cited reasons similar to the principal at
School E for this practice. Also similar to School E, the TC at School B must still
load all teacher computers with Lotus Notes, because of the need to access Lotus
Notes databases.
School A is a charter school that does not pay the fee to have access to Lotus
Notes. School As principal indicated that only they and the office staff had Lotus
Notes accounts, and that teachers never had accounts. The TC at School A clarified
this point by saying that School A was affiliated with a University, which provided
email addresses for the teachers. However, once Google Apps was implemented, the
TC switched the email accounts over to Google Apps Gmail. The implementation of
Google Apps at School A was unique among the schools in the study, because
servers on campus handled the creation and management of Google Apps accounts.
Ordinarily, Google Apps school administrators input user information into the
Google Apps administrator console. At School A, the TC never sees the Google
console. The advantage to this method is that the school has complete control of the
email being sent and received by its users. Additionally, the school can restrict
which domains emails can be sent to or received from. For example, School A limits
middle school students to only being able to email teachers and fellow students. The
TC at School A predicted that the practice of housing servers on campus would soon

57
be discontinued, and gave reasons for the anticipated switch including lower cost,
easier maintenance, and familiarity with the Google Administrators Console.
Table 1 shows a summary of responses from the teacher survey for teacher
Gmail use. Only responses from School A, School B, and School E are included in
these data, because these schools replaced Lotus Notes with Gmail. Responses to
item 10, How often do you use Google Apps to email teachers in your school?
revealed that 90% of respondents use Gmail to communicate with other teachers
Several times a month to Several times a week. Additionally, the lowest
frequency of using Gmail to communicate with other teachers was Several times a
year.

Table 1
Teacher Use of Google Apps Email
Use of Gmail N
% Several
times a month
to several times
a week (4-5 on
1-5 scale) Min Mean
Std.
Deviation
N (valid) 31
N (missing) 43
How often do you use Google Apps to email
teachers in your school?
31 90 3 4.83 .531
How often do you use Google Apps email to
communicate with school administration?
31 90 1 4.16 1.003
How often do you use Google Apps email to
email students parents?
31 13 1 1.50 1.306
1=Never 5= Several times a week


58
Responses to item 11, How often do you use Google Apps email to
communicate with school administration? also revealed that 90% of respondents
use Gmail to communicate with school administrators Several times a month to
Several times a week. This high frequency of teacher use of Gmail suggests that
Gmail is a viable alternative to Lotus Notes. However, this survey did not ask the
same questions to Lotus Notes email users. Comparison between the frequencies of
usage of the two types of email would have provided more insight as to whether or
not Gmail increased or decreased the amount of emails sent to teachers and
administrators.
Item 12, How often do you use Google Apps email to email students
parents? revealed that only 13% of respondents use Gmail to communicate with
parents Several times a month to Several times a week. As mentioned in the
previous paragraph, the lack of information regarding frequency of Lotus Notes
emails sent to parents does not allow for a comparison between the two types of
email providers.

School-wide improvement of work processes and collaboration
efficiency.
The data revealed that Google Apps helped to improve work processes and
efficiency of collaboration, which represent a type of improvement to collaborative
structures. This is supported by the literature mentioned in the review of corporate
wikis used to help improve collaborative structures. Majchrzak, Wagner, and Yates

59
(2006) found that corporate wikis helped to improve collaborative structures by
improving work processes and collaboration efficiency. These improvements were
the result of the contribution of multiple people to a common online wiki trying to
solve common problems. Teacher participation on common Google documents is
similar to participation on corporate wikis, the only difference being that a common
Google document can be manipulated and edited into almost any form that is
appropriate to the task.
An example of how Google Apps improves work processes and collaboration
efficiency is the progress report protocol utilized at School C. School C had a
progress reporting structure in place for collaboration on a common paper document.
The purpose of the progress report was to communicate students progress at the
middle of every quarter. The previous protocol involved teachers rotating a paper
document during common planning times and non-instructional minutes to document
a students progress regarding course grades and achievement by hand. Every
student at School C received a progress report, once a quarter.
With the introduction of Google Apps, teachers were able to add course
progress information to common documents located online. They were able to
access the documents, and add information, 24 hours a day. This is significant,
because prior to Google Apps teachers could only add information while on school
campus, and only one at a time. The principal at School C thought that the time and
effort involved with the online Google document method was greatly reduced from
the common paper document method.

60
Google Apps also added flexibility to the new protocol of producing common
documents. During an interview with School Cs TC, it was revealed that the first
round of progress reports was done in Google Docs. Using Google Docs, the initial
setup of the progress reports was time consuming. Every student needed to have a
separate document, using the progress reports template. Further, once the individual
student templates were created, teachers would need to open each document and fill
in the necessary information. Although this protocol was more efficient than the
paper method, the TC knew that there had to be a better way.
Google Spreadsheets emerged as a more efficient means of teachers entering
progress report information for students. Google Spreadsheets is a spreadsheet,
forms, and charting application within Google Apps. This TC explained that a
common spreadsheet was created with all students listed in the Y-column and the
necessary progress reports information listed in the corresponding X-columns.
Teachers accessed one spreadsheet, instead of many documents, to enter information
for many students. The completed spreadsheet was then fed using a simple mail
merge into individual student documents, which were sent home to parents. The
protocol using Google Spreadsheets has been sustained as the existing protocol for
progress reports at School C. When asked if this protocol was likely to be sustained
at School C, the TC replied, Oh yeah, I dont think there is a question about that.
School C also utilized Google Docs to expedite different processes at faculty
meetings. Whenever there was a discussion point, a common document was
projected on the screen, and teachers were able to freely contribute their thoughts

61
and feelings to the document. Instead of taking the time to have participants voice
their opinions one by one, participants simultaneously added their contributions to
the common document. The principal at School C felt that the amount of time for
participation was reduced, while the actual participation of teachers was increased.
Another school-wide example of participants contributing to a common
document is the use of Google Forms. Google Forms allows creation of online
surveys, collecting information from participants and organizing the responses into a
spreadsheet. The principal from School A used Google Forms to collect information
on t-shirt sizes, on technology in the home, as tests and quizzes, as feedback
forms on events and meetings, to expedite peer review and rubrics-based evaluation,
etc.
School C also utilized forms with the faculty. The principal at this school
expects the teachers to bring laptops to certain staff meetings where online
collaboration is anticipated. At the end of these meetings, a Google form is used as
an Exit Pass for teachers to provide a post-test reflection and evaluation of the
meeting. The principal really felt that if we dont get them to do [the exit pass]
right then, then they wont do it at all. The spreadsheet produced after submissions
provided school leaders with insight as to where future needs were to be addressed.
Another example of a school-wide collaborative product using Google Apps
is School Ds production of a morning news broadcast. Students throughout the
school participate in the production of the morning broadcast by emailing their
scripts to the TCs students, who are in charge of managing the broadcast. Classes

62
rotate responsibility of performing the broadcast, and Gmail serves as the means to
communicate with the students in charge. Once the scripts are emailed, the
broadcast students use Google Docs and Google Presentations to collaborate on
common documents to accomplish the goal of producing the broadcast. In effect, the
whole school contributes to the broadcast. This TC felt that production of the
morning broadcast became easier after the implementation of Google Apps, because
of the collaboration tools it provides.
Another school-wide collaborative product was the transfer of the master
calendar to Google Calendar at School C and School E. The master calendar is the
schedule of events a school keeps current, so that events like field trips, assemblies,
and meetings do not overlap. Normally, the master calendar is located in the
schools office on a bulletin board. Teachers are expected to plan activities around
the events listed on the calendar, and update the calendar as needed with their own
activities. Principals at School C and School E decided to put the master calendar
into Google Calendar because of the increased access to the calendar it provided, and
control of who can update the calendar. Being online, Google Calendar increased
access to the calendar by allowing teachers to view the calendar at any time. Both
principals explained that lead teachers on campus were allowed to add and update
events on the master calendar. These schools moving their master calendars from
paper and pencil to Google Calendar are an example of technology enhancing an
existing product by providing easier access and manipulation of the product.

63
Teacher survey results from questions asking if collaborating on common
documents improved work processes and collaboration efficiency are summarized in
Table 2. Table 2 shows that 68% of respondents felt that collaborating on a common
document improved work processes to an above-moderate to high extent.
Additionally, 70% of respondents felt that collaborating on a common document
helped the school increase collaboration efficiency to an above-moderate to high
extent. These data suggest that Google Docs improves collaboration by improving
work processes and increasing collaboration efficiency.


Table 2
Perceived Benefits Obtained from Google Docs Use in the School
Improving work processes and collaboration
efficiency N
% (5-7 on
1-7 scale) Mode Mean
Std.
Deviation
To what extent would you say that your
collaborating on common Google documents
has helped your SCHOOL to improve work
processes?
74 68 6 5.12 1.711
To what extent would you say that collaborating
on common Google documents has helped your
SCHOOL to increase collaboration efficiency?
74 70 5 5.07 1.805
1 = No extent 7 = High extent


64
Classroom improvement of work processes and collaboration efficiency.
Data from the classroom was limited in this study, because teacher input
came in the form of an online survey, and interviews with principals and TCs gave a
limited account of what was actually happening in the classroom. However, the TC
at School D was the only TC that taught classes. His experiences with teaching with
Google Apps provided insight into this TCs classroom:
My class, they use it for lots of different things. We use it for every week our
student broadcast, we use it for projecting the teleprompter for the broadcast,
we do a lot of collaborative slide shows, and they write a lot of their papers
on itI can also stay in touch with my class, because they can even do chats
with me while I am at home sometimes when I have to answer a question
about homework and stuff I can just quickly boom send them an
answer and so that makes that easier.

The TC went on to suggest that the use of Google Apps made collaboration
more efficient by speeding up the production of the morning broadcast. This TC did
not mention collaboration with individuals beyond the campus, but the collaboration
between classrooms was evident with the production of the morning broadcast. This
TCs technology proficiency is assumed to be high, due to the nature of his TC
position. The literature reviewed in Chapter Two supports this data: Zhao, Pugh,
Sheldon, and Byers (2002) found that low teacher technology proficiency served as a
barrier to implementing technology innovation in the classroom. This TCs high
technology proficiency may have contributed to the school using Google Apps to
collaborate between classrooms, and not just within this TCs own classroom.


65
Table 3
Perceived Benefits Gained from Google Docs Use in the Classroom
Improving work processes and collaboration
efficiency N
% (5-7 on
1-7 scale) Mode Mean
Std.
Deviation
N (valid) 44
N (missing) 30
To what extent would you say that your
collaborating on common Google documents
has helped your CLASSROOM to improve
work processes?
44 82 6 5.51 1.564
To what extent would you say that collaborating
on common Google documents has helped your
CLASSROOM to increase collaboration
efficiency?
44 80 6 5.37 1.543
1 = No extent 7 = High extent


The limited amount of data gathered about Google Apps use in the classroom
is supplemented by the data gathered from the teacher survey. Table 3 shows a
summary of responses regarding Google Docs improving work processes and
collaboration efficiency in the classroom. Responses that indicated Never on item
1, During class, how often do students work using Google Apps this year?, were
not included in this summary, because these responses do not represent teachers
using Google Apps. Table 3 reveals that 82% of respondents felt that collaborating
on a common document improved work processes to an above-moderate to high
extent in the classroom. Additionally, 80% of respondents felt that collaborating on
a common document helped the classroom increase collaboration efficiency to an
above-moderate to high extent. These data suggest that Google Docs improves

66
collaborative structures in the classroom by improving work processes and
increasing collaboration efficiency.

Google Apps made work easier.
In addition to improving work processes and collaboration efficiency,
contributing to a common document has the potential to make work easier. All
principals and TCs mentioned that, whatever the use of Google Apps, one of the
reasons for using a collaborative tool was to make the work easier. The research
mentioned in Chapter Two supports this data, where participation on a corporate
wiki made work easier (Majchrzak et al., 2006). Table 4 summarizes findings with
respect to the respondents who felt that Google Docs made their work easier.

Table 4
Perceived Benefits Obtained from Google Docs Use in the School
Made work easier N
% (4-5 on
1-5 scale) Mode Mean
Std.
Deviation
How often have you added new information or
made a change to a common Google document
because information was of immediate
relevance to your work?
74 51 3 3.49 1.156
How often have you added new information or
made a change to a common Google document
because by keeping knowledge updated, your
work would be easier?
74 53 3 3.52 1.214
How often have you added new information or
made a change to a common Google document
because by putting in your knowledge,
disseminating your work would be easier?
74 50 3 3.45 1.202
1= Never 5= Several times a week

67
The data indicate that a majority of respondents felt that at least several times
a month they contributed to a common document because collaborating on a
common document made their work easier. The data also suggests that adding
information to a common Google Document made the teachers work easier.

Google Apps as a collaboration tool.
Real time online collaboration provided by Google Apps introduces the idea
of being able to simultaneously edit a document to accomplish a common goal. The
schools in this study were not only creating a variety of products using Google Apps,
but were also creating a variety of common documents involving multiple
collaborators. The data support the literature, by giving examples of cloud
computing allowing real time collaboration of many individuals working on the same
project goal. Additionally, during the collaboration, documents could be on display
to the world (Hall, Nousala, & Vines, 2010).
The general nature of the descriptive answers principals and TCs gave
revolved around product creation by a group of people. Not all schools allowed
people outside their campus access to their documents, however an emphasis on the
community of learners accomplishing a project or task was the focus of the interview
data. This is evidence of a progression in assessing online interactions. The
literature mentioned in Chapter Two cites Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson
(1997), who found that online interactions tend to focus on the parts or individual
contributions of the members of the community. The progression is evident, because

68
there was less of an emphasis on which individual was contributing to a document,
and more on the community improving the document.
The research also supports the data which show that collaboration beyond the
classroom tends to be limited. Roschelle, Vahey, Tatar, Karput, and Hegedus (2003)
found that although classrooms had the ability to use networked computers to
collaborate with individuals beyond the classroom, these classrooms tended to use
the technology to only collaborate within the classroom.

Google Apps as a tool encouraging knowledge creation.
Only one principal delved into the notion of Google Apps changing the way
the classroom functioned. The principal at School A elaborated on this notion by
saying:
The notion of class, class time, or participation is changing students
and teachers can log in and interact in a controlled environment well-beyond
the scope of an actual instructional period learning continues online, which
breaks down the physical barriers of the classroom.

This principal also talked about students using peer-review, collaborative
creation of artifacts and collaborative classroom content logs, which did not readily
exist prior to the implementation of Google Apps.
The TC at School A also echoed the principals enthusiasm for and
knowledge about products being created with Google Apps. When asked to
elaborate on the subject, this TC responded:
too many to list. Presentations, spreadsheets, book reports, web sites,
podcasts, projects, movies, you name it. They are really getting creative how

69
they use it. We are using it to collaborate via calendars, long distance
meetings, document production, you name it. We are also leveraging Google
groups to address teacher and student needs. It has really opened up the
classroom as people are collaborating outside of class as well.

The fact that both the principal and the TC at School A mentioned
collaboration beyond the school walls is significant, because this indicates that both
have the necessary knowledge about using collaborative tools to extend their use past
the school campus. However, the data did not reveal specific examples of
communities of learners existing in a knowledge creation community trying solve a
common problem.
Table 5 summarizes student products using Google Apps. Responses that
indicated Never on item 1, During class, how often do students work using
Google Apps this year?, were not included in this summary. The data reveal that
there were a variety of products being created with Google Apps. Students solving
problems and presenting information ranked as the top two uses of Google Apps,
while producing web pages and web sites ranked at the bottom. These data are
supported in Chapter Two, where Johnson and Johnson (1996) found that, 20 years
ago, computer education research was dominated by improving single learner
achievement through the use of computers. As computers started to exist on a
network, which allowed communication between multiple computers, educators
struggled to implement effective and practical use of these networked computers.


70

Table 5
Teacher Technology Use
Student behavior using Google Apps N
% Several
times a
month to
several times
a week (4-5
on 1-5 scale) Mode Mean
Std.
Deviation
N (valid) 44
N (missing) 30
During class, how often do students work
using Google Apps this year?
44 50 2 3.50 1.171
During class, how often do students
research/find information using the Internet
this year?
44 64 4 3.89 .895
During class how often do students use
Google Apps to solve problems this year?
44 34 2 2.93 1.246
During class, how often do students present
information to the class using Google Apps?
44 36 1 2.67 1.459
How often do students produce
pictures/artwork using Google Apps?
44 9 1 1.88 1.814
How often do students produce
graphs/charts using Google Apps?
44 9 1 1.78 1.165
How often do students produce multimedia
projects using Google Apps?
44 9 1 1.5 1.023
How often do students produce web
pages/sites using Google Apps?
44 5 1 1.32 .771
How often do you create a test, quiz or
assignment using Google Apps?
44 14 1 1.86 1.212
How often do you use Google Apps to
deliver instruction to your class?
44 30 1 2.40 1.482
1=Never 5= Several times a week


71
Table 5 also shows that, overall, conducting research ranked considerably
higher than either of the top two uses of Google Apps. This reflects research in
higher education, as mentioned in Chapter Two, that the predominant evidence of
technology implementation is students having better access to information through
the Internet (Pettit & Kuklska-Hulme, 2011). The implementation of technology did
not necessarily transform products expected in the classroom. As reflected in Table
5, although almost two-thirds of the teachers reported using the Internet for research
at least several times a month, only around one-third or fewer of the teachers actually
used Google Apps to solve problems or present in class, not to mention the low
frequency of usage of other products possible within Google Apps. The data do not
reveal evidence of use of other tools to create technological products. Teachers may
have been using other technological tools to create products, which were transformed
through the use of technology.

Research Question Two: What hinders the implementation of Google Apps in
HIDOE elementary and middle schools?
Schools in this study all reported numerous and varied barriers to the
implementation of Google Apps. The following section organizes the various
barriers into three categories: technological barriers, pedagogical barriers, and
financial barriers.


72
Technological barriers.
General technological barriers are inherent to implementing technology
innovation in the classroom (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). One of these
barriers is that a string of technology steps needs to occur. Google Apps is highly
reliant on the Internet working, and the computers in a classroom being able to
communicate with the Google servers located off-campus. If a computer turns on,
and a web browser opens, but the Internet is not working, tools within Google Apps
will not function. The principal at School A described that when Internet
communication from off-campus stops, entire meetings can come to a screeching
halt no internet, no collaborative document.
Another step in the string of technological steps needed for computers to
function properly is access to somebody who can mediate a solution. All principals
in the study made reference to how much they relied on their TCs for the
implementation of Google Apps. The various protocols and technology standards in
place at the various schools were designed and implemented by the TCs. The
principal at School C went so far as to say, without my TC, I am not sure that
Google Apps would be on our campus.
Table 6 shows that a minority of the respondents felt that they needed more
technical support to keep the computers working. However, the most common
individual response was Agree. This suggests that teachers still need the support
of a technology specialist to implement technology in the classroom.


73
Table 6
Barriers to Implementing Google Apps
Technology Assistance N
% (Strongly
agree to Agree
on 1-4 scale) Mode Mean
Std.
Deviation
How would you respond to this statement:
I need more technical support to keep
computers working
74 46 3 2.43 .723
1= Strongly Agree 4= Strongly Disagree


Another barrier to the implementation of Google Apps was a federal policy
protecting the rights of minors, called the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA). As mentioned in the previous section, some schools decided to switch
from using Lotus Notes email to using Gmail provided by Google Apps for
Education. However, data privacy and security came into question. The state-level
technology administrator in charge of data security revealed that FERPA limited the
use of external email providers by HIDOE employees. The specific limitation was
that the transmission of personally identifiable information (PII) must be encrypted.
PII is any information that will reasonably identify an individual to anybody that
does not have prior knowledge of the individual. Lotus Notes allows for encryption
between two Lotus Notes accounts. Encryption between a Lotus Notes account and
an external account, like Gmail, requires a third-party encryption application. The
problem concerns relying on a third-party encryption application. Since there would
be no standard encryption method, HIDOE had a problem regarding how PII would
be handled for schools using external email providers for their employees. A

74
subcommittee was formed, which involved state-level and school-level personnel
attempting to solve the problem of sending PII through external email providers.
The result of months of discussion was a memo sent through the HIDOE memos and
databases, suggesting a general ban on sending PII through external email providers.
Thus, schools are able to use Google Apps for Education for their students and adults
on campus. However, Google could not guarantee data privacy and security,
therefore HIDOE could have banned the use of external email providers in place of
Lotus Notes. However, HIDOE instead made suggestions in the form of a memo to
schools using external email providers to ensure data privacy and security. This
example reflects Sultans (2010) finding that the top two barriers to adopting cloud
computing are data privacy and security.
The research reviewed in Chapter Two points to the state-level technology
administrators in this case implementing what Daft (1978) would call an
administrative innovation. Administrative innovations tend to originate from the
higher levels of management within an organization, and sometimes deal with policy
issues. The FERPA restriction of not allowing PII to be transmitted could have
smothered the technical innovation of implementing Google Apps. However, the
state-level technology administrators found a way to comply with FERPA that would
be acceptable. Research by Damanpour and Evan (1984) also suggests that
administrative innovations often lead to more technical innovations in the long run.
By addressing and solving the concern of violating FERPA with the use of Google

75
Apps, the state-level technology administrators maximized the potential for the
multiple tools within Google Apps to be implemented.
Schools that did not switch teachers to Gmail from Lotus Notes created
another barrier to the implementation of Google Apps. The principal at School C
voiced the concern that having two different email platforms was a barrier to
implementation. This principal observed teachers having difficulty checking two
different email addresses. On the surface, this seems like a small barrier to
overcome. However, the TC at School C elaborated on this point by saying:
The implementation of Google Apps is driving a wedge between the faculty.
There is a clear distinction between teachers that are using Google Apps, and
even a rebellion of teachers that do not use Google Apps. The email thing is
getting to some, because emails are being sent to two different addresses. If a
teacher checks one and not the other, the message is never read.

The difficulty of having to check two email addresses is another example of a
break in what Zhao et al. (2002) would refer to as the string of successful technology
steps that need to occur for technology innovation to succeed.

Pedagogical barriers.
Implementing Google Apps in the classroom demands that teachers change
pedagogical practices. What the teacher does in the classroom is crucial to
technological innovations being implemented with fidelity (Henri, 1992). These
pedagogical practices could range from basic student computer management to
valuing collaborative knowledge creation projects. All principals and TCs named
teacher technology proficiency as one of the barriers to implementing Google Apps.

76
However, only two schools had formal training and professional development in the
use of Google Apps.
One of the schools which implemented formal training was School A. The
principal at School A felt that the school-wide technology professional development,
which included Mac OS training, classroom hardware training, and Google Apps,
was primarily driven, by Google [Apps] and our desire to shift the school into our
Cloud. The TC at School A went on further to say that the principal led the way by
providing the professional development time, but that the teachers led the training
topics and actual training. Every Friday, School A has mandatory technology
professional development time. Teachers are able to pick from several technology
topics, ranging from general hardware use to using specific tools in Google Apps.
The teachers use this time not only to learn specific skills, but also to take the
opportunity to lead a training session. Both principal and TC at School A felt that
the weekly technology professional development sessions contributed to the success
of Google Apps and general technology implementation.
The other school that implemented school training was School C. The
principal at School C stated that they hired a Google Trainer to train the teachers on
how to use Google Apps. More specifically, this principal asked the Google Trainer
to assist with training the teachers to use Google Docs to make the progress report
production more efficient. The School C principal felt that this specific training
contributed to the successful use of Google Apps to produce the progress reports.

77
Another example of a pedagogical barrier inhibiting the optimal use of
Google Apps occurred at School B. Prior to the implementation of Google Apps,
School B had an existing school-wide online portfolio, composed of multiple
documents from all subject areas. The students would save their documents to a
network shared folder on the schools server. Teachers implementing Google Apps
shifted the storage and composition of the online portfolio to the Google servers.
The primary reason for this shift was the compatibility issues between Libre Office
and Microsoft Office. When probed further about Google Apps replacing the
schools server, the TC at School B felt that the schools server was an integral part
of the schools existing workflow, and probably would not be replaced by Google
Apps for at least a couple of years. The shift from using the school server to Google
Apps is reflected in the literature presented in Chapter Two, as an example of
technology enhancing and not changing the educational experience (Henri, 1992;
Cuban, 1993). There was no evidence that School Bs online portfolio was
composed of collaborative documents. Instead, the online portfolio contained
individual artifacts to display student learning. The literature reviewed in Chapter
Two also points to MacDonald (2002), who studied online collaborative
environments. The author emphasized that a higher frequency of collaboration
occurred if the actual collaboration was assessed. The TC at this school did not have
any knowledge of teachers expecting students to include collaborative documents in
the online portfolio.

78
Evidence of knowledge creation was not present in the data gathered through
interviews. There was no mention of a community of learners attempting to solve a
common problem, nor was there evidence of an emphasis on building the knowledge
of a learner and knowing the learners place in a knowledge creation community.
Additionally, no evidence was gathered of classrooms where Google Apps
facilitated the promotion of gaming in the classroom. No principals or TCs
mentioned attempts at creating multi-player online gaming environments where
learners were expected to build up status bars, with the hope of motivating students
to learn. The online nature of Google Apps would lend itself to a community of
learners collaborating on quests to accomplish a common goal.
The lack of evidence of these two pedagogical shifts in the classroom is
supported by the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. Cuban (1993) argues that,
although teachers attempt to utilize online collaboration tools, traditional
pedagogical practices limit the potential for changing what is happening in the
classroom. This limited potential tends to produce schools that use technology to
enhance the existing pedagogical practices, rather than change the educational
experience for the learner.

Financial barriers.
Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, and Soloway (2003) argue that the low impact of
technology on teaching and learning is highly influenced by the lack of access to
technology. Table 7 summarizes the percentage of respondents who indicated their

79
classrooms had at least one computer per student. The data reveal that a minority of
respondents had at least one computer per student. Norris et al. would argue that one
of the barriers to implementing Google Apps is the challenge of giving students
access to computers, in order to use Google Apps.

Table 7
Students Access to Computers
Easy Access to Technology N
% 1 computer for every
student to More than
one computer for every
student (7-8 on 1-8
scale) Mode Mean
Std.
Deviation
What is the approximate ratio of
computers to average amount of
students in your classroom?
74 11 4.00 3.81 1.784
1 = No computers 8 = More than one computer per student


However, Table 8 shows the summary of respondents indicating their level of
access to an Internet-connected computer lab. The data reveal that a majority of
respondents had access to a computer lab at any time. Table 7 and Table 8 suggest
that computer access is available for the majority of teachers studied. However,
Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, and Byers (2002) idea of easy access which is students
having a computer at any time of the day is far from being fulfilled. Although
easy access is not evident at the schools studied, Cuban (1993) argues that even if
there were easy access for students, the traditional pedagogical structures in place

80
would yield results of technology enhancing, not changing, the learners experience
in the classroom.

Table 8
Students Access to Computer Labs
Easy Access to Technology N
% Available
any time (6
on 1-6 scale) Mode Mean
Std.
Deviation
What is the availability of an Internet-
connected computer lab for your students?
74 66 6 5.18 1.307
1 = Not available 6= Available any time


The principal at School C added another financial barrier not discussed at
other schools. School C ran into the problem of students not having Internet access
at home. Teachers were limited to assigning online work which could be completed
during school hours. The expectation of doing online work at home could not be
realized if students did not have Internet access there.
Another financial barrier is the purchasing of Microsoft Office licenses. This
is a financial barrier, because although schools purchase Microsoft Office at a
drastically reduced rate, the cost per license is multiplied by the number of
computers bought. For example, if a school bought six student computers, the
school would need to buy six Microsoft Office licenses. The total cost of purchasing
these six licenses, $300, could equate to purchasing one netbook. Using Google
Apps in place of Microsoft Office would allow for spending to shift from money

81
spent on software to money spent on hardware. All participating principals and TCs
stated that Google Apps did not replace Microsoft Office on campus. However,
interviews with TCs revealed that all schools except School A replaced Microsoft
Office with the OpenOffice.org suite or the newer Libre Office suite for students.
OpenOffice.org and Libre Office are locally-installed office suites, which are both
free for the school to use. All TCs using the free suites mentioned cost as the
deciding factor when they made the decision to switch. TC interviews further
revealed that most adults on campus still used Microsoft Office. Reasons for the
difference between students and adults revolved around familiarity and compatibility
with HIDOE standards.
The TC at School B also mentioned that teachers using Google Apps were
closer to discontinuing the use of Libre Office. Compatibility between Libre Office
and Microsoft Office became an issue when the students would not save their
documents in the proper format. Libre Office defaults to saving in its own format,
which is not compatible with Microsoft Office. Teachers would not be able to open
incompatible files on their own computer, which had Microsoft Office. As teachers
become more familiar with documents existing in the cloud, this TC feels that
teachers would eventually lose the need for a desktop office suite.
These findings are supported by innovation research reviewed in Chapter
Two. Pincus (1974) argues that traditional market pressures affect public schools to
a lesser extent. The clients (students) are forced to attend their areas school. The
market pressure of clients leaving the business is not a threat. The lack of market

82
pressures tends to make public schools more likely to adopt cost-raising innovations,
and less likely to adopt cost-reducing innovations. Adoption of innovations is not
forced under the scrutiny of analyzing their financial worth. Instead, if funding
sources allow for a cost-raising innovation that is thought of as good, public
schools will continue to implement it. Schools adoption of free software
alternatives, like OpenOffice.org and Libre Office, is most likely caused by their
intention to use the saved money to buy other equipment or software.
This chapter presented various ways that Google Apps were being used in
HIDOE elementary and middle schools. By examining how schools used Google
Apps, improvements to collaborative structures and barriers to implementation
emerged. Improvements to collaborative structures were mainly focused on
improving work processes and collaboration efficiency. Where Google Apps
affected pedagogical practices, these improvements served to enhance rather than
disrupt practice. Ultimately, no evidence was found that Google Apps improved
collaborative structures for the purpose of increasing knowledge creation.


83
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to examine how the implementation of Google
Apps has improved collaborative structures in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools. Data gathered through teacher surveys and interviews of principals,
technology coordinators and state-level technology administrators were described
and analyzed to articulate the different ways that Google Apps has been
implemented to improve collaboration. Additionally, the data also provided insight
into what obstacles schools have encountered to the implementation of Google Apps.
Chapter Four presented the findings for the following research questions:
1. How is Google Apps improving collaboration among faculty, students,
and external subject area experts in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools?
2. What hinders the implementation of Google Apps in HIDOE elementary
and middle schools?
This chapter will summarize the findings, suggest implications for future
practice and research, discuss the limitations of the study, and conclude the
dissertation.


84
Summary of Findings
In response to research question one, the findings were as follows:
Google Apps has improved collaborative structures by improving work
processes and collaboration efficiency in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools.
The evidence of collaborative structures being improved was mainly to
enhance, rather than to disrupt, educational practices.
No evidence was found of schools implementing collaborative structures
where knowledge creation is promoted.
In response to research question two, the findings were as follows:
Barriers to implementation of Google Apps exist.
State-level technology administrators implemented administrative
innovations, which gave way to numerous technical innovations.
Google Apps has not replaced Microsoft Office as a cost-reducing
innovation. However, free office suites offer a cost-reducing alternative
for schools.
There were many examples of situations where Google Apps improved
collaborative structures within HIDOE. These improvements came in the form of
improving work processes and collaboration efficiency. Gmail, Google Docs, and
Google Spreadsheets were all used to improve collaborative documents at the
schools studied.

85
Implications for Practice
The findings revealed several implications for practice, because the examples
showed Google Apps being used to improve collaborative structures in HIDOE
schools and classrooms.
The first implication for schools is to emphasize the importance of
collaboration beyond the classroom. The looming deadline of No Child Left
Behinds 100% proficiency rate tends to create classrooms where students are
expected to learn an agreed-upon body of knowledge, and where teachers utilize
questionable pedagogical practices. If HIDOE expects to output more graduates
pursuing STEM careers, then classroom content expectations and pedagogical
practices must be changed. Classrooms that have performance outcomes which can
be measured on a computer corrected assessment tend to discourage an awareness of
where a learner exists in the knowledge advancement society. Globalizing the
classroom, and working on solutions to common problems, thrusts learners into the
realm of actual researchers conducting real-world problem solving situations. Online
technological tools like Google Apps help to facilitate the communication and
documentation of learning throughout the world. Instead of learning an agreed-upon
body of facts and knowledge, global learners are able to advance the knowledge of
what has already been established.
The second implication is for HIDOE to continue to find ways to implement
administrative innovations to encourage more technical innovations. Decisions
made at higher levels of management can help to facilitate the adoption and

86
implementation of innovations that make the day-to-day work processes more
efficient and effective. Facilitating a proper email procedure to avoid FERPA
violations allowed schools to implement Gmail in place of Lotus Notes.
The third implication is for schools to think of ways to increase access to
computers in the classrooms. Although technology spending has increased
throughout the years, easy access to computers is still elusive. Public education
tends to adopt cost-raising innovations because the lack of market pressures
contributes to spending based on intuition, rather than data. Free and open source
software alternatives to costly closed and proprietary software should be
implemented to shift spending away from software and to hardware. Although
hardware considerations were beyond the scope of this study, cheap and low-
powered hardware alternatives like netbooks should be considered in place of
expensive and high-powered laptops and computers.

Implications for Research
The findings reveal three implications for future research studies regarding
the use of Google Apps in HIDOE. The first area of possible study is to examine
schools that are using Google Apps to collaborate with people outside of the
classroom. Although this is a very niche group, the literature would benefit from a
case study approach of schools that are implementing ways of collaborating with
different people beyond the school campus.

87
The second possible area of research is to examine schools or classrooms that
are using Google Apps to facilitate the implementation of innovative pedagogical
practices. Transforming a classroom into a multi-player environment is an example
of changing pedagogical practices. These classrooms utilize technological tools, like
Google Apps, to create environments where learners collaborate to solve a common
problem.
The third possible area of research is to examine if Google Apps improves
the quality of the collaborative product. Improving work processes and collaboration
efficiency indicate improvement to collaborative structures. However, studying
whether Google Apps improves the quality of the product would add to the literature.

Limitations
There were several limitations to this study, which were not anticipated in
Chapter One. The first limitation was the number of schools that were unwilling to
participate in the study. Although a documented 84 schools have signed up with
Google Apps through the DOE, only 19 responded to the preliminary survey. Of the
19 schools that responded, only six were willing to participate in the study. Of the
six, only five were actually implementing Google Apps at their schools. The low
participation rate of schools that are potentially using Google Apps may have limited
the comprehensiveness of the data.
Interviewing principals and technology coordinators, although informative,
did not give the same rich data that might have been produced by interviewing the

88
teachers that are actually implementing Google Apps in the classroom. Open-ended
questions posed to individuals struggling with, and having success with, Google
Apps would add to the comprehensiveness of the data.
Since the focus of this study was Google Apps, other technological tools used
for collaboration may have been overlooked. Interviews with principals, state-level
technology administrators, and technology coordinators asked questions centered on
Google Apps. Perhaps future studies should ask more general questions concerning
using technology to collaborate. Other tools may be revealed, which would add to
the richness of the data.
The sampling of the study may also be a limitation. Throughout the study,
the goal of knowledge creation was prevalent throughout. One of the primary
principles of knowledge creation is knowing your place in the knowledge creation
community. From the outset of this study, the researcher could have solicited
participation in online communities discussing and interacting with topics revolving
around the use of Google Apps. Instead of seeking schools that have implemented
Google Apps, the researcher could have solicited individuals that were already using
Google Apps. Gaps in the participation of all teachers within a school would be non-
existent, because individual participants would be selected, rather than groups of
teachers within a school.


89
Conclusion
Public education faces the difficult challenge of outputting more students into
STEM careers. This means that students who normally would not have pursued
careers in the STEM field need to be attracted to the field. One strategy to
accomplish this goal is to involve learners in a knowledge building community a
group of learners improving current ideas to collaborate on a solution to a common
problem (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Rather than imitating what scholars in a
profession are doing, knowledge building communities participate with experts to
solve a common problem.
Technology in education has earned the dubious distinction of enhancing
education and not necessarily changing education (Henri, 1992; Cuban, 1993).
Schools have increased spending on technology, but have not changed the learning
environment. Online collaboration tools that utilize networked computers have
contributed to the increase in potential for pedagogical change. Google Apps is an
online collaboration tool, free for schools to use. Unlike other online collaboration
tools, Google Apps allows for simultaneous, real-time collaboration on common
documents. Competitors often tout online collaboration as a feature, but
simultaneous editing and adding to the same document remains unique to Google
Apps (Hall, Nousala, & Vines, 2010).
Research in innovation for the public sector has pointed to many examples
where innovations are occurring (Albury, 2005). In an attempt to make innovation a

90
core characteristic in the public sector, Albury (2005, p. 1) created a framework for
thinking and action, which includes these four major components:
The generation of possibilities.
The trailing and prototyping of promising ideas.
Replication and scaling up.
Analysis and learning.
This study focused on the component of trailing and prototyping of promising
ideas. Although all four components are interdependent, the study of how Google
Apps is being used at many schools revealed the innovative environment of HIDOE.
Online collaboration, knowledge advancement, and gaming in the classroom
are possible because computers have the ability to communicate within the
classroom and around the world. Although examples of knowledge advancement
and gaming in the classroom were not revealed, this study provides examples of how
Google Apps has helped to improve work processes, improve collaboration
efficiency, and make work easier. These improvements were made possible through
the use of common documents, and changing protocols to switch from paper and
pencil documents to online documents. Additionally, this study revealed an example
of a school with knowledge of the concept of knowledge advancement and
globalizing the classroom. It is hoped that this knowledge will inform other
educators of possible ways to implement classrooms where knowledge advancement
and gaming occur.


91
CHAPTER SIX
EPILOGUE
The implications for future research presented in the previous chapter
brought forth the idea of studying schools or classrooms where pedagogical practices
have been disrupted with the use of Google Apps. Suggesting a study of something
that might not exist may seem pointless if there are, in fact, no examples of
pedagogical change in schools. However, this researcher is involved with two
examples where Google Apps greatly aided pedagogical change. Personal
involvement with these schools and classrooms prevented this researcher from
studying these examples. A third example was also not included, because it was
only discovered in the last weeks of this researchers completion of the study.
The first example is the case of a 7th grade special education and general
education inclusion math classroom. The teachers of this classroom transformed the
classroom into a massively multiplayer online (MMO) gaming environment. These
teachers recognized that students were struggling with motivation to complete
homework and classroom assignments. As a result, the classroom was transformed
into an MMO game, set in medieval times, called Knowledge Quest (Sheldon, 2011).
In Knowledge Quest, students earn experience points (XP) for fighting
monsters (homework and classwork) and completing quests (presentations to the
class and case studies). Earning XP allows students to move to different reward
levels. Moving to different levels earns students online gold, which can be turned in
for extrinsic rewards like 500 more XP, pencils, bonus points on quizzes, and

92
homework passes. Although moving up levels did not help or hurt students grades
in this school, the number of students who completed the work increased. A peculiar
note to this case is that although playing the game meant completing the work,
students never turned in online gold for bonus points to improve their grade. On the
contrary, an overwhelming majority of students turned in their online gold to
purchase 500 extra XP to move to the next level. The students were more interested
in moving to the next level than improving their grade.
Google Apps provides numerous tools to aid in the implementation of
Knowledge Quest. Students were able to collaborate using Google Docs to complete
quests (preparing presentations and case studies) and the teachers were able to
manage the record-keeping of students earning XP with Google Spreadsheets.
Without Google Apps, collaboration between students would have been difficult, and
the time involved with record-keeping might have led to the demise of implementing
Knowledge Quest.
The second example is a middle school which transformed science
classrooms into problem based learning (PBL) environments. PBL is an
instructional method, based on inquiry, which was developed in an effort to improve
medical school education, because of dissatisfaction with the health care system
(Barrows, 1996). Since then, over 60 universities across the nation have adopted
PBL as the method of instruction for medical schools (Norman & Schmidt, 1992).
The middle school in this case utilizes PBL to increase the number of
students pursuing careers in the health care industry (Howard Hughes Medical

93
Institute, 2007). Students at this school learn through PBL by reading through case
studies, which are stories based on problems, and defining individual learning issues.
The individual learning issues are then researched and shared with the school
community through collaborative online documents. During this process, officials
from the neighboring hospital utilize Google Apps to mentor and provide feedback
to students. Google Apps not only facilitates the collaboration between students at
the school, but also provides the opportunity for experts beyond the school walls to
collaborate with the students.
The third example is a high school that strives to produce creative, ethical
leaders in the STEM fields (Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, 2012). This
school encourages unique partnerships between students and professionals from
around the world. These global partnerships are formed for the sole purpose of
enabling projects that collaboratively create new and innovative products. For
example, biofuels are usually made with corn. However, corn drains the nutrients
from the soil. Grass hybrids are thought of as possible substitutes for corn in biofuel
production, because grass does not have a great impact on soil. This school, in
collaboration with students in China and corporations developing grass hybrids,
tested the viability of using grass hybrids to produce biofuels. This type of
collaboration is unique, because the students have the opportunity to test hypotheses
which have never been tested before.
The geographical spread of the collaborators limits the opportunity for face-
to-face meetings. Instead, an online collaboration platform with Google Apps, video

94
conferencing, and chat rooms, allows for the collaborators to communicate and
create common products. The online collaboration platform is crucial for these
partnerships to prosper.
All three examples illustrate how online collaboration tools, like Google
Apps, facilitate collaboration in an educational setting. Without these technological
tools, changing pedagogical practices and improving collaborative structures would
be difficult to accomplish. If public education expects to heed the call of President
Obama for more Americans in STEM careers, public education needs to transform
classrooms into knowledge creation communities. Knowledge creation communities
rely heavily on technology to facilitate the collaboration necessary to communicate
with learners beyond the school campus. This study showed how Google Apps
improved collaborative structures, which may be the foundation for schools to
transform classrooms where knowledge advancement is valued.

95
REFERENCES
Albury, D. (2005). Fostering innovation in public services. Public Money &
Management, 25(1), 51-56.

Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual
model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215-233.

Barrows, H. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond. In L.
Wilkerson & W.H. Gijselaers (Eds.), New directions for teaching and
learning: Vol. 68. Bringing problem-based learning to higher education:
Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bebell, D., Russell, M., & ODwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers technology
uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 37(1), 4563.

Becker, H. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of
professional use and teacher-directed student use (Report No. 1). Center for
Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of
California, Irvine.

Brown, J., Collins, S. A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Education Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and
learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 1632.

Chan, C. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining
knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 147-186.

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: how
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.

Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College
Record, 95, 185-210.

Damanpour, F. & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance:
The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly,
29(3), 392-409.


96
Daft, R. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. The Academy of
Management Journal, 21(2), 193-210.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P.
Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational
approaches (pp. 1-16). Amsterdam, NL: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.

Dubey, A., & Wagle, D. (2007). Delivering software as a service. The McKinsey
Quarterly, 112.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Goodlad, J. I. (1969). Thought, invention and research in the advancement of
education. In Committee for Economic Development, The schools and the
challenge of innovations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Gross, N., Giaquinta, J., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational
innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational change. New
York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global
online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for
examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, 395-429.

Hall, W. P., Nousala, S., & Vines, R. (2010). Using Googles apps for the
collaborative construction, refinement and formalization of knowledge.
ICOMP10 - The 2010 International Conference on Internet Computing, Las
Vegas, Nevada, USA, July 12-15. http://tinyurl.com/26pklny.

Hawaii Department of Education, Lotus Notes Support Section. (2010, June).
Procedure for Nonpaying Charter Schools. Retrieved from
http://lotusnotes.k12.hi.us/PUBLIC/LotusNotes.nsf/10d1a575953d0e908a256
c340001adab/13b7e7e5c39a709c0a2575f90077d52e?OpenDocument

Hedlund, G. (2011). If youre going to use the computer, you will have to totally
think computer. Malm hgskola/Lrarutbildningen, 37-40.

Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.),
Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers,
117136. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.


97
Herrick, D. R. (2009). Google this!: using Google apps for collaboration and
productivity. SIGUCCS 09: Proc. ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference on User
services.

Howard Hughes Medical Institute. (2007). HHMI: Precollege Outreach Initiative for
Biomedical Research Institutions. Retrieved August 5, 2011 from HHMI
website:
http://www.hhmi.org/grants/precollege/profiles/main?event=profile_get&PR
OJID=51006098&listCrumb=null

Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. (2012). About IMSA | Illinois
Mathematics and Science Academy. Retrieved April 23, 2012 from IMSA
website: https://www3.imsa.edu/about

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In
D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications
and technology, 1017-1044. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). On-line social interchange, discord and
knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for
social interaction in computer supported collaborative learning environments:
A review of the research. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19(3), 335353.

Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2006). Corporate wiki users: results of a
survey. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis
(WikiSym '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 99-104.
DOI=10.1145/1149453.1149472
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1149453.1149472

Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: process and product.
Computers & Education, 40, 377-391.

Nguyen, T. (2008). Technology Tango: School Library Media Specialists and
Technology Coordinators. Paper presented at National Education Computing
Conference. San Antonio, TX.

Norman, G., & Schmidt, H. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based
learning: a review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9).


98
Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no
impact: snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1527.

Obama, Barack. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2011). Remarks
by the President in State of the Union Address Washington, D.C.: Retrieved
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-
president-state-union-address

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pettit J., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2011). Mobile 2.0 crossing the border into formal
learning? In Mark J. W. Lee and Catherine McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0
Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching.
Information Science Reference. Hershey & New York. IGI Global, 192-208.

Pfaffman, J. A. (2007). Its time to consider open source software. TechTrends,
51(3), 38-43.

Pincus, J. (1974). Incentives for innovation in the public schools. Review of
Educational Research, 44(1), 113-144

Polenske, K. R. (2004) Competition, collaboration, and cooperation: an uneasy
triangle in networks of firms and regions. Regional Studies, 38, 102943.

Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning
environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 23, 101111.

Roessner, J. D. (1977). Incentives to innovate in public and private organizations.
Administration & Society, 9(3) 341-365. doi:10.1177/009539977700900304

Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., Tatar, D., Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. J. (2003). Five key
considerations for networking in a handheld-based mathematics classroom. In
N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the
2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol. 4, 71-78). Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii.

Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 105-126.


99
Russell, M., & Haney, W. (2000) Bridging the gap between testing and technology
in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(19), March 28, 2000.
Published on the WWW at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n19/.

Saloman, G. (Ed.) (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations learning in doing: Social, cognitive, and computational
Perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and
technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sheldon, L. (2011). The multiplayer classroom: Designing coursework as a game
(1st ed.). Boston, MA: Course Technology Press.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative
learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Stigler, J. W., Gallimore, R., & Hiebert, J. (2000). Using video surveys to compare
classrooms and teaching across cultures: Examples and lessons from the
TIMSS video studies. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 87-100.
doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3502_3

Sultan, N. (2010). Cloud computing for education: A new dawn? International
Journal of Information Management, 30(2), 109-116.

van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction,
and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 259-287.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wagner, C., Brahmakalum, I., Jackson, B., Yoda, T., & Wong, A. (2001). Science &
technology collaboration: Building capacity in developing countries? The
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica.

Wallace, R. M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the internet.
American Educational Research Journal, 41, 447-488,
doi:10.3102/00028312041002447


100
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organziations. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom
technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3).


101
APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Teachers at Hawaii DOE Schools
The purpose of this study is to examine how the implementation of Google Apps has
improved collaborative structures in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE)
elementary and middle schools.

The purpose of this survey is to gather information about teacher knowledge about
how Google Apps is improving collaborative structures and what hinders the
implementation of Google Apps.

Google Apps Use (Selected Response)

(1)
Never
(2) Once or
twice a year
(3) Several
times a year
(4) Several
times a month
(5) Several
times a week

1. During class, how often do students work using Google Apps this year?

2. During class, how often do students research/find information using the
Internet this year?

3. During class/how often do students use Google Apps to solve problems this
year?

4. During class, how often do student present information to the class using
Google Apps?

5. How often do students produce pictures/artwork using Google Apps?

6. How often do student produce graphs/charts using Google Apps?

7. How often do student produce multimedia projects using Google Apps?

8. How often do students produce web pages/sites using Google Apps?

9. How often do you create a test, quiz or assignment using Google Apps?

10. How often do you use Google Apps to email teachers in your school?


102
11. How often do you use Google Apps email to communicate with school
administration?

12. How often do you use Google Apps email to email students parents?

13. How often do you use Google Apps to deliver instruction to your class?


103
Improving Work Processes and
Collaboration Efficiency (Selected
response)

(1) No extent (4) Moderate extent (7) High extent

14. To what extent would you say that your collaborating on common Google
documents has helped your SCHOOL to improve work processes?

15. To what extent would you say that your collaborating on common Google
documents has helped your CLASSROOM to improve work processes?

16. To what extent would you say that collaborating on common Google
documents has helped your SCHOOL to increase collaboration efficiency?

17. To what extent would you say that collaborating on common Google
documents has helped your CLASSROOM to increase collaboration
efficiency?


104
Google Apps making work easier.
(Selected Response)

(1)
Never
(2) Once or
twice a year
(3) Several
times a year
(4) Several
times a month
(5) Several
times a week

18. How often have you added new information or made a change to a common
Google document because information was of immediate relevance to your
work?

19. How often have you added new information or made a change to a common
Google document because by keeping knowledge updated, your work would
be easier?

20. How often have you added new information or made a change to a common
Google document because by putting in your knowledge, disseminating your
work would be easier?


105
Barriers to Implementing Google Apps
(Selected Response)

(1) Strongly Agree (2) Agree (3) Neutral (4) Disagree (5) Strongly disagree

21. How would you respond to this statement: I need more access to the Internet
for my students.

22. How would you respond to this statement: I need more technical support to
keep computers working.

23. How would you respond to this statement: Google Apps is a replacement for
Microsoft Office.

(1) No
computers
(2) Less
than 1
computer
for every 6
students
(3) 1
computer
for every
6 students
(4) 1
computer
for every
5
students
(5) 1
computer
for every
4
students
(6) 1
computer
for every
2
students
(7) 1
computer
for every
student
(8) More
than 1
computer
for every
student

24. What is the approximate ratio of computers to average amount of students in
your classroom? Please only count computers that are able to edit a Google
Document online.

END OF SURVEY


106
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR PRINCIPALS AND TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATORS AT THE SCHOOL
The purpose of this study is to examine how the implementation of Google Apps has
improved collaborative structures in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE)
elementary and middle schools.

The purpose of this interview is to gather information about principal and technology
coordinator knowledge about how Google Apps is improving collaborative structures
and what hinders the implementation of Google Apps.

1. Who is using Google Apps?

2. What types of products have been made with Google Apps?

3. How has Google Apps been used to encourage collaboration in your school?

4. What has changed since the implementation of Google Apps?

5. What difficulties have you encountered with the implementation of Google
Apps?

6. How can the implementation of Google Apps be improved?

7. Has Google Apps reduced the amount of money spent on software at your
school?

8. Has Google Apps replaced MS Office?

9. Has Google Apps replaced Lotus Notes on campus?


107
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STATE-LEVEL TECHNOLOGY
ADMINISTRATORS
The purpose of this study is to examine how the implementation of Google Apps has
improved collaborative structures in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE)
elementary and middle schools.

The purpose of this interview is to gather information about state-level technology
coordinator knowledge about how Google Apps is improving collaborative structures
and what hinders the implementation of Google Apps.

1. Who is using Google Apps?

2. What types of products have been made with Google Apps?

3. How has Google Apps been used to encourage collaboration in the state?

4. What has changed since the implementation of Google Apps?

5. What difficulties have you encountered with the implementation of Google
Apps?

6. How can the implementation of Google Apps be improved?

7. Has Google Apps reduced the amount of money spent on software in the
state?

8. What is the cost per seat for Lotus Notes?

9. Why is Google Apps not used in place of Lotus Notes?