Examining Teacher Technology Use

8/3/2019 Examining Teacher Technology Use

1/15

http://jte.sagepub.comJournal of Teacher Education

DOI: 10.1177/0022487103255985

2003; 54; 297Journal of Teacher EducationMichael Russell, Damian Bebell, Laura O'Dwyer and Kathleen O'Connor

Examining Teacher Technology Use: Implications for Preservice and Inservice Teacher Preparati

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/54/4/297The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

can be found at:Journal of Teacher EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

2003 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.by guest on October 21, 2007http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.aacte.org/http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.aacte.org/


2/15

10.1177/0022487103255985ARTICLEJournalofTeacher Education, Vol. 54, No. 4, September/October 2003JournalofTeacher Education, Vol. 54, No. 4, September/October 2003

EXAMINING TEACHER TECHNOLOGY USE

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRESERVICE AND INSERVICE TEACHER PREPARATION

Michael RussellDamian BebellLaura ODwyerKathleen OConnorTechnology and Assessment Study Collaborative

Boston College

As access to computer-based technology in schools and classrooms increases, greater emphasis hasbeen placedon preparing teachers to use technology for instructionalpurposes. Surveydata collectedfrom 2,894 teachers in 22 Massachusetts districtswere analyzed to examine theextent to which tech-

nology is used in and out of the classroom for instructional purposes. In addition to defining six spe-cific categories of instructional use of technology, this study provides evidence that teachersgenerally use technology more forpreparationand communication than fordelivering instruction orassigning learning activities that require the use of technology. Important differences, however, werefound among teachers who were new to the field compared with their more experienced colleagues.Althoughnewteachers reportedhigher levelsof comfortwith technology and useit more forprepara-tion, more experienced teachers report using technology more often in theclassroomwhen deliveringinstruction or having students engage in learning activities.

Keywords: educational technology; computers; instructional practices; teacher preparation

During the past decade, expenditureson, accessto, and use of computer-based technologies byteachers and students have increased sharply.Between 1995 and 2001, federal expendituresoneducational technology increased from $21 to$729 million, with the student-to-computer ra-tio decreasing from 9:1 to 4:1 nationally(Glennan & Melmed, 1996; Market Data Re-trieval, 1999, 2001). In 2001, the U.S. CensusBureaus (2002) current population survey re-ported that American children between ages 9

and 17 use computers more than do any otherreported subgroup of the American population(92.6%). In addition, data from 1998 indicate

that more than 80%of teachers usecomputersathome or in their schools (Ravitz, Wong, &Becker, 1999).

Despite these large expenditures, increasedaccess, and nearly universal use by school-agechildren and their teachers, several observershave questioned theextent to which technologyis affecting teaching and learning. For example,Stoll (1999) and Healy (1998) have criticizedinvestments in educational technologies, argu-ing that there is little evidence they affect teach-

ing and learning in a positive way. They, in fact,asserted that computer use may be harmingchildren and their learning. More recently,

297

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSSupported under the Field Initiated Study Grant Program, PR/Award No. R305T010065, as administered by the Office ofEducational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 54, No. 4, September/October 2003, 297-310DOI: 10.1177/0022487103255985 2003 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/


3/15

Cuban (2001) argued that computers have beenoversold as a vehicle for reforming educationalpractices and are generally underused as aninstructional tool by teachers at all levelsof edu-cation. Specifically, Cuban argued that despite

widespread use of computers by teachers out-side of the classroom, instructional practicesand school culture have not incorporated com-puter-based technologies into regular instruc-tional practices. From Cubans perspective, theproblem is twofold. First, teachers lack anunderstanding of how technology can be inte-grated into regular classroom instructionalpractices. This notion is supported by a 1999U.S. Department of Education (2000) survey inwhich only one third of teachers reported feel-ing either well prepared or very well prepared

to usecomputers andthe Internet for classroominstruction. Second, school systems have notbeen restructured to fully support the integra-tion of technology during instruction. As aresult, computer use during class time is oftentreated as a special event oran add-on tothe tra-ditional curriculum.

In response to the first problem,some observ-ers have noted that as new teachers who havegrown up in a technology-rich environmententer the profession, theircomfort and skill withtechnology will lead to increased use of com-

puters for instruction (U.S. Department of Edu-cation,2000). However, theMilken ExchangeonEducation Technology and the InternationalSociety for Technology in Education portray adifferent picture and argue that in general,teacher-training programs do not providefuture teachers with the kinds of experiencesnecessary to prepare them to use technologyeffectively in their classrooms (Milken Ex-change on Education Technology, 1999, p. i).Specifically, these organizations believe thatnew teachers must be exposed to ways of teach-ing with technology during formal teacherpreparation programs. One recent federal gov-ernment initiative to further prepare newteach-ers to use technology is the Preparing Tomor-rows Teachers to Use Technology program.Since 1999, the Preparing Tomorrows Teachersto Use Technology program has invested $337.5million to help transform teacher preparationprograms so teachers can make more effective

use of technology as an instructional tool (U.S.Department of Education, 2002).

Similarly, several observershaveemphasizedtheneed to provide in-service teachers with bet-ter preparation on how to integrate technology

into their teachingpractices. Ina 2000 report, theU. S. Department of Education stated thatteachers preparation and training to use edu-cation technology is a key factor to considerwhen examining their use of computers and theInternet for instructional purposes (p. iii). Inresponse to this need, the No Child Left BehindAct of 2001 (Pub. Law No. 107-110) requiresrecipients of technology grants to invest a mini-mum of 25% of the awarded funds in profes-sional development relatedto instructionalusesof technology.

Recognizing the importance of preparingpreservice and in-service teachers to use com-puter-based technologies, throughout this arti-cle, we employ data collected as part of the Use,Support, and Effect of Instructional Technology(USEIT) Study to explore three issues related toenhancing teachers ability to use technology inthe classroom. These issues include (a) identify-ing the ways in which teachers use technologyfor professional purposes; (b) examining therelationships between teachers comfort withtechnology, beliefs about technology, and pro-

fessional uses of technology; and (c) examiningthe extent to which teachers who have recentlyentered the teaching profession are comfortablewith technology and use technology for profes-sional purposes. Based on these findings, impli-cations for preservice and in-service teacherpreparation will be explored. Before examiningthese issues, we provide a brief overview of theUSEIT studyandthedata used to examine thesethree issues.

THE USEIT STUDY

Working with 22 school districts locatedthroughout Massachusetts, the USEIT studywas designed to provide information to betterunderstand how educational technologies arebeing used by teachers and students, what fac-tors influence these uses, and how these usesaffect student learning. The 3-year study beganduring the spring of 2001 and was divided into

298 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 54, No. 4, September/October 2003



4/15

two phases. During the first phase (the 2001-2002 school year), information about districttechnology programs, teacher and student useof technology in and out of the classroom, and

factors that influence these uses were collectedthrough site visits, interviews, and surveys. Intotal, survey responses were obtained from 120district-level administrators, 122 principals,4,400 teachers, and 14,200 students. In addition,more than 300 interviews with district andschool leaders, technology support specialists,and library and media specialists were con-ducted. Duringthe secondphase (the 2002-2003school year), case studies that focus on specificissuesrelated to technology support andusearebeing conductedas well as researchthat focuseson therelationship between student useof tech-nology and academic performance.

Specifically, across the 22 districts participat-ing in the USEIT study, all teachers ineach oftheschools were asked to complete the teacher sur-vey. The analyses presented in this article arebased on survey responses from the K-12 math-ematics, English-language arts, science, socialstudies, and elementary classroom teachers,yielding a total of 2,894 surveys. A brief sum-mary of the descriptive characteristics of this

USEIT teacher sample (including the teachersgrade levels taught, subject areas taught, andthe number of years taught at their schools andthroughout their careers) follows.

In Table 1, both the number of years teachershave been at their current schools and the num-ber of years teachers have taught throughouttheir careers are reported. Table 1 shows firstand foremost how willing the participating

teachers were to share information on the sur-vey, with less than 1% of the sample notresponding. It is also clear from Table 1 that theUSEIT teacher sample represents a range ofexperience. In Massachusetts, as across thenation, there has been much concern recentlyover the number of retirement-age teachers(Darling-Hammond, 1997). Thus, it is interest-ing to note that 45% of the samplehas taught formore than 15 years throughout their careers.

Conversely, about 26% of teachers arerelativelynew to the field (with 5 or less years ofexperience).

Table 2 shows that the sample includes a broad range of teachers across grade levels,with kindergarten through 12th grade each rep-resented by at least 225 teachers.

Recall that only data on K-12 mathematics,English or language arts, science, social studies,and self-contained elementary classroom teach-ers are used in the following analyses pre-sented. Table 3 shows the subject areascurrently

being taught by the 2,894 teachers who com-prise the USEIT sample. Specifically, Table 3shows that the teacher sample is spread acrossthe subject areas, with no single area havingfewer than 470 teachers.

The USEIT study was designed to focus on abroad range of issues related to teacher and stu-dent use of technology and included severalsurvey items and site visit questions that focus

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 54, No. 4, September/October 2003 299

TABLE 1: Number of Years Teaching for Teachers in theUSEIT Study

Number of Teachers

Years Taught Years Taught at

Throughout Career Current School

Less than 1 year 125 4.3% 490 15.9%1-2 years 199 6.9% 413 13.4%

3-5 years 438 15.1% 595 19.3%

6-10 years 508 17.6% 445 14.5%

11-15 years 283 9.8% 273 8.9%

More than 15 years 1,319 45.6% 837 27.2%

Missing responses 29 0.8% 23 0.7%

TABLE 2: Grade Level Currently Being Taught by Teachersin the USEIT Study

Grade Level Number of Teachers

Kindergarten 230

1st

Grade 306

2nd

Grade 315

3rd Grade 333

4th

Grade 325

5th

Grade 291

6th

Grade 262

7th

Grade 229

8th

Grade 239

9th

Grade 473

10th

Grade 545

11th

Grade 584

12th

Grade 537

NOTE:The USEIT survey instrumentallowed teachers to select allgrades they were currently teaching, therefore teachers may berepresented at more than one grade level with the total numberof teachers in this table exceeding that of the total sample ofteachers.



5/15

specifically on the ways in which teachers arecurrently using technology and the factors thatinfluence these uses. It is this subset of surveyitems and site visit questions that providesinsight into issues related to teacher prepared-ness (bothpreservice andin-service)to usetech-nology for instructional practices.

DEFINING TEACHER USE

During the past two decades, a substantialbody of research has focused on teachers use ofcomputer-based technology. Across this bodyof research, what is meant by technology usevaries widely. In some cases, technology use isspecific to the use of computer-based technolo-

gies to deliver instruction. For example, ateacher may use graphical software on a com-puter connected to a liquid-crystal display pro-jector to demonstrate theprinciplesof geometryto the class. In other cases, teachers require stu-dents to use technology to develop products orto facilitate learning. A teacher might ask stu-dents to use Microsoft PowerPoint to create apresentation or to use the Internet to conductresearch. In still other cases, teacher technologyuse includes e-mailing, preparing lessons, andmaintaining records as well as personal use.

Although several studies have focused on onespecific use of technology, conversations aboutuse of technology in schools often employ amore general or generic conception of teacherstechnology use.

This problem was identified in the 1995 Of-fice of Technology Assessment report Teachersand Technology: Making the Connection, whichnoted that previous efforts to examine teachers

useof technology employed various categoriza-tions and definitions of what constitutestechnology use in the classroom. For example, a1992 International Association for the Evalua-tion of Educational Achievement survey de-

fined a computer-using teacher as someonewho sometimes used computers with stu-dents.Becker (1994)constructed a more compli-cated classification system 2 years later to iden-tify computer-using teachers. In his approach,at least 90% of teachers students needed to beusing a computer in the class in any way oramount in order for the teachers to be consid-ered computer using. Thus, the InternationalAssociation for the Evaluation of EducationalAchievement defined teachers use of technol-ogy in terms of their use of technology for

instructional delivery, whereas Becker defineduse in terms of the use of technology by teach-ers students.It is notsurprisingthat usingthesetwo very different definitions of a computer-using teacher yielded very different results:The International Association for the Evalua-tion of Educational Achievement reported that75%of U.S. teachers could be classified as com-puter-using teachers, whereas 2 years later,Beckers criteria yielded about one third asmany (approximately 25%) (Office of Technol-ogy Assessment, 1995). This confusion andinconsistency led the Office of TechnologyAssessment (1995) to remark that the percent-age of teachers classified as computer-usingteachers is quite variable and becomes smalleras definitions of use become more stringent(p. 103).

With so many different types of technologyuses emerging, defining teacher technology usehas become even more complex. For example,Windows/graphic user interface operating sys-tems have made many software programs eas-

ier to use, and programs such as MicrosoftPowerPoint, spreadsheets, andeducational CD-ROMs have opened new avenues for technol-ogy use in theclassroom. Liquid-crystal displayprojectors offer teachers an alternative forinstructional delivery. Expansionof the Internetmakes it possible for teachers to research andaccess lessons and resources, and e-mail hasemerged as an effective tool for teachers to com-


TABLE 3: Subject Area Currently Being Taught byTeachers in the USEIT Study

Subject/Class Taught Number of Teachers

English/language arts 664

Math 538

Social studies/geography/history 496

Science 472

Self-contained elementary 1,279

NOTE: The USEIT survey instrument allowed teachers to selectall subjects they were currently teaching, therefore teachers maybe represented in more than one subject area with the total num-ber of teachers in this table exceeding that of the total sample ofteachers.



6/15

municate with people in and out of school(Becker, 1999; Lerman, 1998). Advances incomputer-based technologies have allowedteachers to use technology to support theirteaching in an increasing variety of ways. Yetamong many school leaders and educationalorganizations, teachers use of technology is of-ten discussed as a generic and one-dimensionalpractice.

To examine whether the many different tech-nology uses reported by teachers are onedimensional, Bebell, Russell, and ODwyer (inpress) performed a factor analysis of 44 USEITteacher survey items, each of which focused ona specific use of technology. In some cases, thesurvey items focused on teachers use of a spe-cific type of technology such as using a liquid-crystal display projector or e-mail. Other itemsfocused on specific ways in which teachers ask

students to use technology, such as for writingpapers, conducting research, using spread-sheets, or creating Web pages. In still othercases, items focused on teacher use of technol-ogy for specific purposes such as creating quiz-zes and tests, preparing lessons, or accommo-dating lessons. If the individual uses togetherrepresent a single category of generic technol-ogy use, then it would be expected that the ini-tial factoranalysiswouldidentifyonemajorfac-tor that united a substantial number of theseitems into a single construct. This turned out to

not be the case.Instead, analyses yielded six distinct factors

(or categories) of teacher technology use. Foreach category, a separate measure of technologyuse was formed. These categories include thefollowing:

1. Teacher use of technology for preparation2. Teacher use of technology for delivery3. Teacher-directed student use of technology

4. Teacheruse of technology forspecial educationandaccommodation

5. Teacher use of e-mail6. Teacher use of technology for recording grades

By identifying six separate categories ofteacher technologyuse, weare notinferring thateach individual category is unrelated to theother technology use categories. Indeed, asTable 4 indicates, there is a positive correlationbetween each of the six technology categories.These positive correlations suggest that teach-ers who use technology for one purpose are, onaverage, likely to use technology for other pur-poses. It is important to note that the majority ofcorrelations are below 0.30 and that the mediancorrelation among these six categories is 0.26.This suggests that the relationships are gener-ally weak and provides evidence that separateaspects of technology use are being measured.

To providea senseofhowfrequently teachersemploy each of these six categories of technol-ogy use, a mean scale score was calculated foreach category of technology use. Because theitems comprising the technology use measuresall employed the same response options, themean scale score was calculated by finding themean response for the items comprising eachmeasure (Bebell et al., in press). As seen in Fig-ure 1, teachers use technology for preparationand work-relatede-mailing most often. In addi-tion, teachers more often direct students to use

technology than they use technology them-selves to deliver instruction.

Theaimof examiningteacher technology usein such detail is twofold. First, when consider-ing teacher use of technology, whether from theperspective of teacher preparation or research,it is important to recognize that there are manydifferent types of technology use related toinstruction. Clearly, teachers in the USEIT sam-


TABLE 4: Correlation Among Categories of Teacher Technology Use

Accommodation Delivery E-Mail Preparation Student Use Grading

Accommodation 1.00

Delivery 0.26 1.00

E-mail 0.26 0.25 1.00

Preparation 0.27 0.26 0.35 1.00

Student use 0.32 0.47 0.22 0.27 1.00

Grading 0.11 0.17 0.15 0.24 0.07 1.00



7/15

ple use technology regularly for preparationand e-mail but less frequently for instructionalpurposes in theclassroom (either by the teacheror by the student). Thus, when attempting toexamine technology use or to influence teach-ers technology use, it is important to addresseach specific type of use rather than simplyfocusing on teachers use of technology ingeneral.

Second, the extentto which teachers usetech-nology varies widely across the categories ofuse.Supporting Cubans (2001) argument, thesedata show that teachers infrequently use tech-nology in the classroom. Yet, a substantialamount of use occurs outside of the class-room, particularly for preparation and profes-

sional communication via e-mail. Based on thispattern, it seems that the skills teachers havedevelopedwhether through their own experi-ences, professional development, or preservicetrainingmay be leading to substantial use oftechnology outside of the classroom but havehad smaller effects on instructional uses in theclassroom.

BELIEFS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND

USE OF TECHNOLOGY

To develop a better understanding of thevariables that influence each category of tech-nology use, Bebell et al. (in press) used regres-sion techniques to identify those variables thatcombine to best predict each category of tech-nology use. Briefly, a unique model was devel-oped for each of the separate six categoriesof teacher technology uses. When developingthese models, a large number of variables

believed to influence use were initially em-ployed to predict use.These predictors includedvariables such as grade level, number of yearsteaching, access to technology, availability ofprofessional development, perceived need forprofessional development, pressure to use tech-nology, level of technology support available,pedagogical beliefs, comfort with technology,and beliefs about technology.1

Table 5 presents the standardized regressioncoefficients for the variables that combine toproduce the best prediction model for each ofthe following four categories of teachers tech-nology use: delivery, e-mail, preparation, andstudent use. Grading and accommodation willnot be discussed here in part due to space con-

straints but also because grading was influ-enced by school-level policies and accommoda-tions were performed most frequently byspecial education teachers who were notincluded in the current analyses.Acrossthreeofthe four categories of use, teacher beliefs aboutthe importance of technology for teaching wasthe strongest predictor of the frequency withwhich technology is used for a given purpose.Similarly, access to technology was an impor-tant predictor for all four uses. In addition,teacher beliefs about the importance of technol-

ogy forshaping classroom instruction were alsoan importantpredictor fordelivery andteacher-directed student use. It is interesting that confi-dence with technology was only a predictor fortwo categories of technology use: delivery andpreparation.

Intermsof thepredictor variablesthatappearto influence the four categories of teachers useof technology, beliefs about technology are con-


FIGURE 1: Frequency of Teacher Technology Uses



8/15

sistently and strongly related to use. Clearly,confidence with technology is a variable thatalso influences some categories of use, but itsinfluence appears much smaller than that of

beliefs. Belief about the importance of technol-ogy for teaching is the strongest predictor ofdelivery in the classroom and teacher-directedstudent use.

Assuming this pattern holds for teachers notincluded in the USEIT study, a key step inincreasing teachers uses of technology may bechanging their beliefs about the importance oftechnology. In both preservice preparation andprofessional development, perhaps efforts tochange beliefs about technology before askingteachers to use the technology may result in

higher levels of use.To provide a sense of how exposure to a spe-

cific technology can have a positive impact onbeliefs about the value of those technologies, aseriesof items askedteachers about the extenttowhich they valued specific types of technolo-gies. Teachers were also asked whether theycurrently have access to each of these technolo-gies. For each technology, teachers were placedintoone oftwo groups, those who havethe tech-nology and those who do not. The extent towhich teachers valued each technology was

then compared between the two groups. Figure2 presents the results of this comparison.

As seen in Figure 2, for every technology toolorscenario, teachers whoactuallyhaveaccesstoa specific technology more strongly value thattechnology than do teachers who do not haveaccess. It is interesting that the difference in val-ues is largest for newer technologies, such asPalm Pilots, wireless laptops,andportable writ-

ing devices, and for technologies given directlyto students. As one example, on average, teach-ers who have a portable writing device for eachstudentbelieve this is much more valuablecom-

pared with teachers who do not have one ofthese devices for each of their students. Thispattern suggests that teachers beliefs about thevalue of a technology increases as they gainexposure to particular technologies, particu-larly for newer technologies and when technol-ogy is used directly by students. If this findinggeneralizes beyond the USEIT sample, it sug-gests that teacher training and professionaldevelopment programs may be able to shiftteachers beliefs about the value of specific tech-nologies by providing them with opportunities

to actually work with these technologies. Thispattern also suggests that attempts to targetresource acquisition or professional develop-ment to teachers needs by querying teachersabout their needs may underestimate the per-ceived value of new technologies or technolo-gies placed directly in the hands of students.

Together, the relationship between beliefsand use and the relationship between exposureand beliefs suggest that shifting teacher beliefsby exposing them to uses of technologiesshould be an important component of teacher

training programs that aim to enhance instruc-tional uses of technology.

NEW TEACHERS

AND USES OF TECHNOLOGY

As mentioned earlier, the report by the U.S.Department of Education (2000) suggests someobservers believe that the comfort and skills


TABLE 5: Predictor Models for Each Category of Technology Use

Use for Student Use for Use for

Delivery Use Preparation E-Mail

Adjusted R2

0.19 0.24 0.18 0.17

Importance of technology for teaching 0.23 (.02) 0.24 (.02) 0.24 (.02) 0.19 (.02)

Access 0.20 (.01) 0.26 (.01) 0.13 (.01) 0.19 (.01)

Confidence 0.07 (.02) 0.15 (.02)

Importance of technology to shape classroom use 0.15 (.02) 0.21 (.02)

Years Teaching 0.11 (.01)

Perceived need for professional development -0.08 (.02) -0.16 (.02)

Success of districts technology program 0.15 (.02)

NOTE. Standard errors are reported in parentheses.



9/15

new teachers develop while growing up withcomputers will help transform their instruc-tional practices as teachers. To examine theextent to which this assumption holds, teachersresponding to the USEIT survey were catego-rized into one of three groups according to theirnumber of years teaching. Group A includesteacherswho havetaughtfor 1 to5 years,GroupB includes teachers who have taught for 6 to 15years, and Group C includes teachers who have

taught for more than 15 years.As described in greater detail in Russell,

Bebell, and ODwyer (in press), several surveyitems were combinedthrough factoranalyses toform individual scales that measure teachersresponses on the following dimensions:

Confidence with technology (confidence) Beliefs about the positive impact of technology on

students (positive impact)

Beliefs about the negative impact of technology onstudents (negative impact)

Beliefs aboutteacher-directedinstructionalpractices(teacher directed)

Beliefs about student-centered instructional prac-tices (student centered)

Once again, the following four categories ofteacher useof technology areexamined: teacheruse of technology for delivery (delivery), teacheruse of e-mail (e-mail), teacher use of technol-

ogy for preparation (preparation), and teacher-directed student use of technology (studentuse).

For each of the beliefand use scales, the factorscores were standardizedto have a mean of zeroand a standard deviation of one. For all vari-ables, a higher scale value represents strongerlevels of confidence, belief, and use. Groupmeans were calculated foreach measure, and an


FIGURE 2: Comparison of TeachersValues of Various Technologies or Technology Scenarios by Their Access to the Technol-

ogy or Technology Scenario



10/15

analysis of variance was conducted to testwhether mean scale scores differed among thethreegroups of teachers. Because multiple com-parisons were made, the Dunn approach tomultiple comparisons was used to adjust thealpha level such that a simple .01 level for a sin-

gle comparison becomes .001 for nine compari-sons (Glass & Hopkins, 1984). We use this alphalevel in discussing the statistical significance ofeach analysis of variance. For each analysis ofvariance, the Dunn method was also used toadjust the alpha level for the three plannedgroup comparisons for each variable.

As seen in Table 6, teachers with 5 or lessyears experience are significantly more confi-dent using technology than are teachers whoentered the profession 6 to 15 years ago or morethan 15 years ago. Similarly, teachers who

entered the profession 6 to 15 years ago are alsosignificantly more confident with technologythan are teachers who entered more than 15years ago. Thus, with respect to teachers confi-dence working with technology, the USEIT sur-vey data provide evidence that newer teachersare more confident than are teachers who havebeen in the profession for 6 or more years.

It is interesting that beliefs about positiveimpacts of technology on student learning donot differ between teachers who are new to theprofession and those who have been teaching

for 6 or more years. Even more surprising, newteachers have significantly stronger beliefsabout the negative impacts of technology onstudent learning. That is, newteachers are morelikely to believe that use of technology harmsspecific aspects of student learning. These neg-ative impacts include making students morelazy, decreasing research skills, and decreasingthe quality of student writing. This pattern

appears tobecounterintuitivebecause it is thesenewer teachers who have grown up with tech-nology, are confident working with technology,and yet believe more strongly that the use oftechnology can have negative impacts on stu-dent learning.Onemightspeculatethat because

these teachers used technology as students, it istheir past experiences learning with technologythat have instilled these more negative beliefs.However, a survey of 4th-, 8th-, and 11th-gradestudents conducted as part of the USEIT studyindicates that todays students have strong be-liefs about the positive rather than negativeeffects of technology on their learning (Russell,OBrien, Bebell, & ODwyer, 2003). Unless theways in which students use technology haschanged since these teachers were in school, it islikely that some other experiences are instilling

these negative beliefs. In light of the significantinvestments made in educational technologyduring the past decade and efforts to better pre-pare teachers to use technology made since1998, it is particularly puzzling that these newteachers are developing significantly more neg-ative beliefs about the impacts of technologythan are more experienced teachers.

Through the analysis of a national survey ofteachers conducted in 1998, Becker and his col-leagues identified teachers pedagogical beliefsas an important variable that influences teach-

ers use of technology in the classroom (Ravitz,Becker, & Wong, 2000). Specifically, they foundthat teachers with constructivist beliefs weremore likely to use technology in the classroomthan were teachers with more traditional peda-gogical beliefs. Given this relationship, theUSEITsurveydata were used to examine differ-ences in pedagogical beliefs based on the lengthoftimea teacher has beeninthe profession. Spe-


TABLE 6: Confidence Using Technology and Beliefs About the Impacts of Technology on Students

Confidence1

Positive Impacts Negative Impacts 1

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1-5 yrs (A) 0.37 0.99 0.00 0.95 0.21 1.02

6-15 yrs (B) 0.08* 0.97 -0.07 1.03 -0.07* 0.99

+15 yrs (C) -0.20 0.97 0.05 1.01 -0.08 0.981

Indicates ANOVA was statistically significant at the .01 level.

* Indicates a significant difference at the .01 level between group A and group B.

Indicates a significant difference at the .01 level between group A and group C.

Indicates a significant difference at the .01 level between group B and group C.



11/15

cifically, the three groups were compared ontwo variables, one that measures the extent towhich they agreed with teacher-directed peda-gogical practices and one that measures theextent to which they agreed with student-cen-tered pedagogical practices. As seen in Table 7,there aresignificant differences among thethreegroups for both types of pedagogical beliefs.With respect to teacher-directed beliefs, teach-ers who have entered the profession mostrecently and teachers who entered the profes-sion more than 15 years ago have strongerteacher-directed beliefs than do teachers whohave been in the profession for 6 to 15 years.

That is, both newer and well-tenured teachersagree more strongly withteacher-directed prac-tices compared with teachers who have beenteaching for 6 to 15 years.

The pattern differs, however, for student-centered beliefs, with both new teachers andteachers who have been teaching for 6 to 15years agreeing more strongly with student-centered practices compared with more veteranteachers. Given the emphasis placed on stu-dent-centered pedagogy in many preserviceteacher preparation programs, it is interesting

that newteachers have similar beliefs about stu-dent-centered practices compared with teach-erswhohavebeenintheprofession6to15yearsyet have stronger beliefs about teacher-directedpractices. Although we do not have any datathat provide insight into this pattern, it mayreflect the combined effect of emphasis placedon student-centered practices by teacher prepa-ration programs and past experiences as stu-

dents in classrooms that employed teacher-directed practices.

Table 8 presents comparisons among thethree groups of teachers across the followingfour categories of technology use: preparation,

communication via e-mail, delivery of instruc-tion, and teacher-directed student use. Theresults show that newer teachers communicatevia e-mail significantly more than do teacherswho have been in the profession for more than15 years. As some observers had predicted,teachers who have entered the profession dur-ing the past 5 years usetechnology significantlymore forpreparationthando teachers whohavetaughtfor15ormoreyears,butwhenitcomestotechnology use during instruction, new teach-ers require students to use technology during

class time significantly less than do teacherswho have taught for 6 or more years. It is inter-esting that there are no significant differencesamong the three groups in terms of technologyuse to deliver instruction.

In summary, teachers who have entered theprofession during the past 5 years are signifi-cantly more confident with technology, use itmore for professional purposes outside of theclassroom, but require their students to usetechnology significantly lessthando moreexpe-rienced teachers. It is interesting that the beliefs

of new teachers regarding teacher-directedinstruction appearmore similar to teachers whohave been teaching for more than 15 years thanthey do to teachers who have taught for 6 to 15years. Finally, the new teachers have strongerbeliefs about thenegative impacts of computerson students than do teachers who have beenteaching for more than 5 years. Thus, whereasnew teachers are more comfortable with com-puters and use them more outside of the class-room, the assumption that this higher level ofcomfort translates to increasedinstructional use

in the classroom does not hold.

DISCUSSION

During the past decade, schools have in-vested heavily in acquiring computer-basedtechnologies. As critics and proponents of edu-cational technology have noted, the potentialeducational benefits of this investment cannot


TABLE 7: Pedagogical Beliefs About Teacher-Directed andStudent-Centered Instructional Practices

Teacher-Directed1

Student-Centered1

Mean SD Mean SD

1-5 yrs (A) .05 .99 .06 .97

6-15 yrs (B) -.18* .98 .15 .96+15 yrs (C) .09

1.00 -.14

1.02

1Indicates ANOVA was statistically significant at the .01 level.

* Indicatesa significant difference at the.01 level between group Aand group B.Indicates a significant difference at the .01level between group A

and group C.Indicates a significant difference at the .01level between group B

and group C.



12/15

be realized unless teachers are prepared to usecomputers for instructional purposes. Al-though the USEIT study was not designed toexamine research questions focused on teacherpreparation, the teacher survey, interview, andsite visit data collected as part of this study pro-

vide valuable insight into some of the issuesrelated to preparing preservice and in-serviceteachers to use technology. First, the findings ofthe USEIT teacher analysis suggest that teachertechnology use is a multifaceted and complexbehavior. For this reason, it is important to con-ceive of technology use in terms of specific andunique categories of use rather than as a single,generic dimension. The findings highlight theimportance of clearly articulating these specifictypes of technology use in which teachers en-gage. These categories include uses of tech-nology to deliver instruction, to prepare forinstruction, to accommodate instruction, tocommunicate with others in and out of theschool, and to direct students to use technologyfor specific instructional purposes. As educa-tional technology use in and out of the class-roomincreases, somust ourability toclearly dif-ferentiate among the ways teachers can usetechnology. Preservice and in-service teachereducation programs may be encouraged toexpose teachers to each of the six teacher tech-

nology use categoriesemphasizing the differ-ent uses, available applications, possibilities,and practices for using diverse technologies tosupport and enhance various aspects of teach-ing and learning.

Withsuch a wide variety of technology appli-cations available, it seems prudent to focusteacher preparation on specific types of usesrather than on familiarizing them with technol-

ogy in general. It is interesting that this practicealso applies to principals and district adminis-trators.Through interviews withprincipals anddistrict leaders, it became clear that the vastmajority of school leaders do not have a goodsense of the many ways in which teachers are

using technology and how to evaluate theseuses of technology. As an example, when askedwhat criteria they would apply when evaluat-ing teachers use of technology for instructionalpurposes, less than 8% of principals inter-viewed were able to respond with specific crite-ria. Clearly, teacher and school leadership train-ing programs,whether they are preservice or in-service, would benefit from a more nuancedapproachto preparingeducators to usetechnol-ogy in and out of the classroom for professional

purposes.Second, analysis of the teacher survey data

reiterates the importance of teachers beliefsand attitudes as important predictors of nearlyall types of technology uses (Ravitz et al., 1999).Specifically, thisanalysissuggests thatteachersattitudes and beliefs toward technology are ofgreat importance in their decisionsto adopt andfrequently use technology in the classroom.Quite simply, changing teachers useof technol-ogy requires changing their beliefs about tech-

nology. It is not surprising then that theanalysessuggest one way to strengthen beliefs is to pro-vide opportunities for teachers to acquire famil-iarity with technology. This may be particularlytrue during preservice training when teacherscanbe exposed to a wide variety of technologiesand ways to use these technologies to supportinstructional goals, specifically addressing theuse of technology in the classroom for instruc-


TABLE 8: Technology Use for Preparation, Communication via E-Mail, Delivery of Instruction, and Teacher-Directed StudentUse of Technology

Preparation Use1

Email Use1

Delivery Use Teacher-Directed Student Use 1

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1-5 yrs (A) .29 .80 .04 1.02 -.06 .98 -.12 .95

6-15 yrs (B) .14* .92 .13 1.01 .01 .97 .03* .99+15 yrs (C) -.27

1.08 -.11

.98 .02 1.01 .06

1.03

1Indicates ANOVA was statistically significant at the .01 level.

* Indicates a significant difference at the .01 level between group A and group B.

Indicates a significant difference at the .01 level between group A and group C.

Indicates a significant difference at the .01 level between group B and group C.



13/15

tional delivery andteacher-directedstudentuseof technology.

Thus, teacher preparation may be enhancedby creating opportunities for teachers in train-ing to see and experience the positive effects of

technology on teaching and learning. We feel itis of great importance to supplement efforts toteach the mechanics of technology with expos-ing teachers to examples of technology inte-grated into the curriculum and classroom. Tothis end, classrooms in which technology is being used effectively for instructional pur-poses, either as a delivery tool by the teachers oras a learning tool by the students, need to beidentified and the practices shared with otherteachers. That is, in addition to focusing on howto use a specific technology to create products

such as Web pages or PowerPoint presenta-tions, efforts to model how these products canbe used to support instructional objectives mayresult in stronger beliefs about thevalue of tech-nology for teaching and learning. In turn, thesestronger beliefs are more likely to translate intomore frequent use of technology once apreservice teacher enters the profession.

Third, as some observers have predicted,there are important differences between thecomfort level, beliefs, and practices with tech-

nology between new and more veteran teach-ers. However, the differences found in theUSEIT sample are not always consistent withthe predictions. It is clear that most of the cur-rent generation of teachers have been moreexposed to technology than have their prede-cessors. This exposure results in higher confi-dence levelswith technology butdoes nottrans-late intohigher levelsofuse of technology intheclassroom. The assumption that technology usein classrooms will increase simply because ateacher grew up in a technology-rich world

appears false.Althoughteachers whohaverecentlyentered

the profession report more confidence usingcomputers, their beliefs about the negativeeffects of computers on students are strongerthan those of teachers who have been in the pro-fession for 6 or more years. Although the newerteachers use technology more outside of theclassroom for preparation and communication,

they direct their students to use technology inthe classroom significantly less than do moreexperienced teachers. New teachers may bemorecomfortable withthetechnology itself, butthey require further training on the value and

uses of technology as an instructional tool. Thisfinding was reaffirmed by numerous principalsand district-level school administrators duringsite visit interviews.

Duringthese interviews,conductedas part ofthe USEIT study, principals identified twoissues that impede the use of technology forinstruction in the classroom during the first fewyears of teachers careers. First, although newerteachers are generally familiar and comfortablewith working with technology, they have notbeen exposed to applications of technology in

the classroom. In most cases, the schools theseteachers attended as K-12 students were not yetequipped with a substantial amount of technol-ogy or the technology was not regularly inte-grated into the curriculum by their teachers.Thus, their models of teaching based on theirown experiences as students do not include theintegration of technology into instruction. Inaddition, these teachers have more recentlycompleted teacher education programs, manyof which focus on how to use technology rather

than on how to teach with technology and inte-grate it into everyday teaching. This focus onfamiliarizing preservice teachers with specifictechnologies rather than on how to integratethese technologies into instruction may furtheradd to their comfort with technology but doesnotpresent themwithinstructionalmodels theycan emulate once they enter the profession.

Second, principals suggested that because thefirst few years of teaching are so challengingwith teachers having to develop behavior man-agement techniques, become familiar with the

curriculum, adapt to the school culture, and be-come familiar with assessment systemstheydonothavetimetoexplorewaystointegratethetechnology availableto them. It is theorized thatonly after teachers have become comfortablewith curriculums, schools, and other aspects ofteaching that they have the time and energy toinvest in exploring ways to use technology intheir classrooms.




14/15

Without question, the large influx of newteachers projected to occur during the next 10years offers a unique opportunity to shape ournations educational system. This notion isespecially promising for the transformation of

our classrooms into the 21st-century, technol-ogy-enriched learning centers envisioned byeducational theorists, policy makers, andschoolleaders (Lemke & Coughlin, 1998; Papert, 1992,1996). Indeed, thecurrent generation of teachersenteringthefield is more comfortableandconfi-dent with technology than anyprevious genera-tion. This confidence, however, is not enough toreform education. Teachers entering the profes-sion need to develop positive beliefs about tech-nology and skills to use technology in a widevariety of ways. Based on the data presented,

one approach to preparing teachers to teachwith technology is to move away from focusingon teaching technology and instead focus onteaching with technologyrather than intro-ducing technology as an available yet periph-eral tool,emphasizingtechnology as an integraltool with diverse uses and inherent potential toenhance teachingandlearningbeyondwhat thetraditional methods allow. Through interviewswith principals, it is apparent that teachers andschool leaders would benefit from exposure to

new models of teaching that capitalize on spe-cific instructional uses of technology. The extentto which these uses can be linked to positiveeffects on students and their learning will likely bolster positive beliefs about the impacts oftechnology use. Althoughit maynot be possibleto pair every preservice teacher with an experi-enced and sophisticated technology-usingteacher, efforts to bring the practices employedby these teachers into the vision of teachingpreservice teachers has the potential to enhancebeliefs about and increase instructional uses of

technology.

NOTE

1. For a full description of these variables, see Russell, Bebell,andODwyer (inpress). Fora full descriptionof themethods usedto develop the regression models, see Bebell, Russell, andODwyer (in press).

REFERENCES

Bebell, D., Russell, M., & ODwyer, L. (in press). Under-standing and measuring teacher technology use. Boston:Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative,Boston College.

Becker, H. (1994). Analysis and trends of school use of new

information technologies. Washington, DC: Office ofTechnology Assessment.

Becker, H. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of pro-fessional use and teacher-directed student use. Irvine, CA:Center for Research on Information Technology andOrganizations.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in theclassroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most:Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Com-mission on Teaching and Americas Future.

Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods ineducation and psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Glennan,T.K.,&Melmed,A.(1996).Fosteringtheuseofedu-

cational technology: Elements of a national strategy. SantaMonica, CA: RAND.

Healy, J. M. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affectour childrens mindsand what we can do about it. NewYork: Touchstone.

Lemke, C., & Coughlin, E. (1998). Technology in Americanschools: Seven dimensions for gauging progress. SantaMonica, CA: Milken-Exchange on Technology/MilkenFamily Foundation.

Lerman, J. (1998). Youve got mail: 10 nifty ways teachers canuse e-mail to extend kids learning. Retrieved January 10,2003, from http://www.electronic-school.com/0398f5.html

MarketData Retrieval. (1999).Technology in education 1999.Shelton, CT: Author.

MarketData Retrieval. (2001).Technology in education 2001.Shelton, CT: Author.

Milken Exchange on Education Technology. (1999). Willnew teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A nationalsurvey on information technology in teacher education .Santa Monica, CA: Author. Retrieved March 28, 2003,from http://www.mff.org.publications

Office of Technology Assessment. (1995).Teachers and tech-nology:Making theconnection (OTA-EHR-616). Washing-ton, DC: Government Printing Office.

Papert, S (1992). The childrens machine. New York:HarperCollins.

Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: Building the digitalgeneration gap. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet.Ravitz, J.,Becker, H., & Wong, Y. (2000).Constructivist-com-

patible beliefs and practices among U.S. teachers. Irvine,CA: Center for Research on Information Technologyand Organizations.

Ravitz, J., Wong, Y., & Becker, H. (1999). Report to partici-pants. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on InformationTechnologyandOrganizations.RetrievedApril7, 2002,




15/15

from: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/spe-cial_report/index.htm

Russell, M.,Bebell, D.,& ODwyer, L. (inpress). TheUSEITstudy technical report. Boston: Technology and Assess-ment Study Collaborative, Boston College.

Russell, M., OBrien, E., Bebell, D., & ODwyer, L. (2003)Students beliefs, access, and use of computers in school andat home. Boston: Technology and Assessment StudyCollaborative, Boston College.

Stoll, C. (1999). High-tech heretic. New York: RandomHouse.

U.S.Census Bureau. (2002).Anationon-line: HowAmericansare expanding their use of the Internet. Washington, DC:Author.

U.S.Departmentof Education. (2002).Preparing tomorrowsteachers to use technology (PT3). Retrieved March 27,2002, from: http://www.ed.gov/teachtech/

U.S. Department of Education, National CenterforEduca-tionStatistics.(2000). Teachers tools for the21st century.Areport on teachers use of technology. Washington, DC:

Author. Retrieved January 10, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/spider/webspider/2000102.shtml (EricDocument Reproduction Service No. ED444599)

Michael Russell is a director of the Technology &Assessment StudyCollaborative(inTASC)at Boston Col-lege, a senior associate at the Center for the Study ofTesting, Evaluation, andEducational Policy,and an assis-tant professor in the Lynch School of Education at BostonCollege. He received his Ph.D. in educational research,measurement, and evaluation at Boston College. Hisresearch interests lie at the intersection of technology,

learning,andassessment andinclude applicationsof tech-nology to testing and impacts of technology on studentsand their learning.

Damian Bebell is a research associate at the Technol-ogy & Assessment Study Collaborative at Boston College.

He received his Ph.D. in educational research, measure-ment, andevaluation at BostonCollege.His current inter-ests include student achievement, educational technology,alternative assessments, and rural education.

Laura ODwyer is a senior research associate at theTechnology & Assessment Study Collaborative at BostonCollege where she received her Ph.D. in educationalresearch, measurement, and evaluation. Her generalresearchinterests include multilevelmodeling techniques,international comparative studies of educational achieve-ment, simulation methods, and imputation procedures.

Kathleen OConnoris a researchassociateat theTech-nology & Assessment Study Collaborative at Boston Col-lege. She received her masters degrees in the Division ofCurriculum and Instruction at Boston College with adegree in elementary education and a degree in specialeducation. Her research agenda includes studying theeffects of technology integration in the elementary schoolclassroom, instruction and assessment in elementary andspecial education, international comparative education,teacher education, and achieving equity through educa-tion policy.


Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jajaja-jajajaja
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Examining Teacher Technology Use

Documents