How has use of computers in the classoom changed learning system?5 page essayMLA style

INFLUENCE OF UNIVERSITY LEVEL DIRECT INSTRUCTION ON EDUCATORS' USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM ANGIE M. GARNER JENNIFER M. BONDS-RAACKE Fort Hays State University Previous research regarding technology integration in education has indicated that when technology is integrated into the classroom with fidelity it can enhance educational experiences. Research has also in- dicated, however that despite the growing presence of technology in classrooms, it is not being effectively utilized. The present study ex- amined the effects that receiving direct instruction at the university level on the topic of technology integration into the classroom had on teachers' ability to integrate technology into their curriculum and classroom practices. The sample for the current study was comprised of 17 individuals who were either current students or graduates of a master's program who had completed the course: Introduction to Utili- zation of Technology in Classrooms. Results indicated that participants demonstrated an ability to integrate technologies at higher levels than determined by previous research across two of the four scenarios pre- sented. The content of the two scenarios that were found to be signifi- cant indicates that while the participants have considerable knowledge relative to technology, they are not as proficient at transferring such knowledge into instructional practices. These findings and implica- tions are discussed in light of changing practices in higher education.

Technology is quickly emerging as a cata- lyst for changing the ways in which we think, gather information, and especially the ways in which we are educated. Communication and information technologies, development of Web 2.0 tools, and the availabilify of the internet and its many educational tools and applications have a profound abilify to change the ways in which we process and share information. Furthermore, these de- velopments have the potential to change the ways in which we practice formal education (Cifuentes, Maxwell, & Bulu, 2011; Hsu, Wu, & Hwang, 2007; Jacobs, 2010; McNabb, Hawker, & Rouk, 1999; Sandholz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1996; Schacter, 1999; Taimin, Bemerd, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011).

The benefits of having these technol- ogies, literally at our fingertips, have been explored in a myriad of studies and published works. This literature review will examine such studies, with special attention given to research on the integration of technology in the classroom setting.

Much research has been conducted regard- ing the effects that the integration of technol- ogy into the classroom can and does have on education. The recent influx of technology into the classroom has allowed for a vast pool of knowledge to be gathered relating the use of various technologies and teaching techniques and their effects on learning (McNab et al., 1999).

Using meta-analysis to investigate more than 500 individual research studies of technol- ogy enhanced education, Kulik (1994) found that students learn more in less time when they participate in computer based instruction and also like their cotirses more and have a more 145 146 / Reading Improvement positive attitude in classes where technology is utilized. Similar analysis by Sivin-Kachala (1998) assessing 210 research studies, indi- cated that students in technology rich envi- ronments demonstrate increased achievement fi"om grades preschool through university level for both regular and special needs individuals, that they experience positive effects on level of achievement in all primary subject areas, and that in general student's attitudes toward education and their personal concept improved in instances where computers were used for educational purposes.

Thus, the current research indicates al- most without exception that when technolo- gy is properly integrated, and implemented consistently, it can enhance educational experiences (Hsu et al., 2007; Jacobs, 2010; Kulik, 1994; Schacter, 1999; Sivin-Kachala, 1998).

However, there is also research to suggest that even in instances where tech- nology is present in the classroom, it is not being effectively utilized (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Cole, 2000; Jacobs, 2010; Kim, Jain, Westhoff, & Rezabek, 2008; National Center for Educational Statistic (NCES), 2000; Paiak & Walls, 2009). Information gathered during further investigation of these instructors, for which funding or resources do not appear to be central to the issue, reveals that there are other factors related to proper technology in- tegration, or lack thereof.

In an effort to better illuminate why technology is not being properly integrated.

Hooper and Rieber (1999) proposed a mod- el comprised of five stages of adoption of technology in the educational setting. These stages follow a continuum beginning with familiarization, the most basic stage, which is characterized by first interactions with technology and learning basic technological processes. Teachers then progress into the utilization phase, in which they try out new technologies but fail to adopt the technology into their curriculum practices. The next level on the continuum is integration denoted as the "break-through phase" which is characterized by a teachers' dependency on technologies and conscious efforts to incorporate them into the classroom setting and curriculum. The fourth stage of the model is the reorientation phase in which the teacher embraces technology and tums his or her focus to student-centered learning. The final level on the continuum is the evolution phase during which the teacher understands that the learning environment must continuously change to meet the chal- lenges of individualized learning.

Subsequently, there is much debate over the primary factors influencing teachers' will- ingness and ability to integrate technology into the curriculum when it is readily avail- able.

One reason for this lack of integration appears to be due to an ineptness of instruc- tors in the area of technology integration into the classroom. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2000), only one third of teachers surveyed indicated they felt well prepared to integrate technology into their classrooms. These sta- tistics may reflect an indication that teacher education at the university level, in its current state, does not allow for or encourage the in- clusion of technology as a vital and necessary component of curriculum (Eartmer & Ot- tenbreit-Leitwich, 2010). For over 20 years, the conceptualization of teacher knowledge has been based primarily on the fi-amework proposed by Shuhnan (1986, 1987). Schul- man (1986) defines categories of knowledge that include, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowl- edge.

In accord with this conceptualization, knowledge and skills related to technology receive very minimal attention and are re- garded as a supplement to current curriculum components at best. Therefore, an unintended consequence of Schulman's definition is the indication that technology has not yet been integrated into what represents good teaching Technology Integration /147 methods and practice (Fajet, Bello, Leftwich, Mesler, & Shaver, 2005).

In an effort to combat this perception, additional conceptions have been presented to change and expand teacher knowledge systems to incorporate technology. Such con- ceptualizations include, pedagogical technol- ogy integration content knowledge (PTICK; Brantly-Dias, Kinuthia, Shofftier, DeCastro & Rigole, 2007), technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK; AACTE, 2008; Pierson, 2001); and ICT-TPCK which is a strand of TPCK emphasizing relevant knowl- edge of communication and Information tech- nologies (Angeli & Valanides, 2009).

In addition to these attempts at shifts in conceptualization, technology based stan- dards have also been presented and endorsed to increase technology integration in schools in the United States. Recognizing that tech- nological literacy has become a basic require- ment of teaching, the International Sociefy for Technology in Education (ISTE) first published its National Educational Teaching Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) in 1998 and has since revised them as recently as 2008 to reflect changing needs in educational technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; International Sociefy for Technology in Education, 2008).

In spite of these efforts emphasizing the importance of technological literacy, research has suggested that even among teachers who are technologically prepared, their level of integration of technology into the curriculum is lagging. Bauer and Kenton (2005) investi- gated the technology usage of 30 "tech sav- vy" instructors. Results indicated that when teachers were experienced, highly skilled, and trained in technology, they still did not consistently integrate it into their classroom.

Additionally, Palak and Walls (2009) con- cluded from their research that even in tech- nology-rich schools, teachers rarely utilize technology for student-centered instructional practice, but instead utilize it primarily for administrative purposes, preparation and classroom management.

In order to determine the factors aftecting this gap between knowledge of technologies and utilization in the classroom, several studies have been conducted. These studies indicate that when technology is present and easily attainable, the four factors related to integration are time, teacher attitudes, beliefs, and comfort levels regarding usage of tech- nology. Hsu et al. (2007) demonstrated that the largest predictor of the successful practice of technology integration into the classroom is the teachers' belief in the effectiveness of technology based instruction. Research addi- tionally indicates these factors are influenced by the level of exposure one has to technol- ogy, insofar as, teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and comfort levels appear to increase with the amount of exposure they have to technology and the amount of formal training they have regarding its use (Palak & Walls, 2009).

Currently, it is believed fonnal training regarding how to effectively implement technology into the classroom is scarce and sometimes unattainable to educators at both the pre and post-service levels (Kim et al, 2008).

Likewise, it has been theorized that formal education at the university level is the best means for influencing teachers' attitudes and beliefs toward the usage of technology (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Palak and Walls (2009) concluded fi'om their research on how teachers' beliefs affect technology integration that professional development focusing on the integration of technology can affect teachers' beliefs. Drawing from this contention, the re- searchers propose a shin in training and pro- fessional development of educators focusing specifically on the integration of technology into the curriculum. Synchronously, Bauer and Kenton (2005) contend the methods that teachers incorporate into their classrooms are a direct reflection of their training and teacher 148 / Reading Improvement education programs have the greatest impact on the methods that teachers incorporate into their classrooms.

Bauer and Kenton's beliefs are supported in recent findings. Specifically, Kim et al.

(2008) investigated how faculfy modeling of technology usage at the universify level affected pre-service teachers' intent to utilize technology in their classrooms. Findings suggested a significant correlation between the variables of pre-service teachers' per- ception of faculfy modeling of technology and pre-service teachers' intent to use such technologies upon entering the field. These results indicate, on the basis of Bandura's so- cial learning theory, the educational practices of teachers regarding technology is infiuenced by those whom they are educated at the uni- versity level. To this end, a plethora of liter- ature has presently emerged calling for the development of preparation for pre-service teachers in the form of educational technolo- gy courses (Gronseth et al., 2010; Ham, 2010; Lei, 2009; Wetzel et al., 2008).

Research examining the impact of the inclusion of technology courses into the cur- riculum requirements for pre-service teachers is lacking at the present time, however, the literature suggests at least one attempt. Choy, Wong, and Gao (2009) compared student teachers' intentions of integrating technology into their classroom during student teaching and their actual actions in the classroom set- ting as student teachers. Research indicated the participants' intentions to use technolo- gy for student-centered learning, intentions to act as a facilitator of technology in class, and confidence level in carrying out a lead- ership role in the integration of technology in schools increased. However, the majority of participants were unable to transfer positive intentions of technology integration into ac- tion during their student teaching.

The current study examined the effect that receiving formal education at the university level had on teacher utilization and imple- mentation in the classroom setting. It was anticipated that those individuals who had received formal training at the universify level would be likely to use technology in a way that directly supports classroom learning goals when presented with scenarios that are relevant to common classroom situations. Re- search has indicated that while teachers may use technology, most of them do not make it past the utilization stage and use it primari- ly for administrative purposes (e.g., Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Based on these research findings, technology use categorized as basic or administrative acted as a baseline or ex- pected level of technology use and technol- ogy integration categorized as sophisticated technology integration demonstrated use that directly supports classroom learning goals, thus reaching levels beyond baseline. There- fore, it was hypothesized that individuals who had received formal training at the university level would have significantly higher levels of technology integration than the standard level determined from previous research.

Additionally, it was hypothesized that lev- els of technology integration (i.e., no technol- ogy integration, rudimentary or administra- tive technology integration, or sophisticated technology integration) would differ across perceived scenario content (considering both the situation presented and NETS-T Standard 1, 2, 3, or 5) and across levels of teaching (i.e., novice, intermediate, or expert). It was expected that levels of technology integration would differ across scenarios given that par- ticular educational situations may be deemed more technology integration friendly. Ad- ditionally, based on research indicating that teachers' perceptions and attitudes toward technology use are affected by familiarify with tools and pedagogical content knowl- edge (Palak & Walls, 2009), and centered on the premise that technology integration is affected by these factors (Hsu et al., 2007), Technology Integration /149 the level (reflective of number of years) of teaching experience was examined.

Research indicates that philosophies of education influence teaching styles and class- room practices of educators (Sadker & Sad- ker, 2003). Additionally, Ravitz and Becker (2000) demonstrated a positive correlation between computer use and participants' who reported being closely aligned with a con- structivist philosophy of education.

Construc- tivist views of education highlight a propen- sity toward student-centered classrooms. Of the philosophies of education presented by Sadker and Sadker (2003), the philosophies of progressivism, social reconstructionsim, and existentialism are considered student-cen- tered philosophes, while essentialism and perennialism are considered teacher-centered philosophies of education. Therefore, it was hypothesized that the five philosophies of education would be significantly related to level of technology integration. Specifically, it was predicted that the subscale of the pro- gressivism philosophy of education would be more significantly correlated with technology integration than individuals who identify with other philosophies of education. Contrarily, it was also projected that the subscale of the essentialism philosophy of education would be least correlated with level of technology integration.

Finally, this study investigated, which, if any, of the four domains of perceptions of computers and technology were significant- ly related to level of technology integration.

Accordingly, it was hypothesized that the four domains of perceptions of computers and technology would be significantly related to level of technology integration.

Method Participants Participants included current students and graduates of a master's program who had tak- en the course: Introduction to Utilization of Technology in Classrooms. Participants were recruited from a database of students who had taken the aforementioned course as kept by the instructor. This consisted of 126 individu- als and an invitation to participate in the sur- vey was sent to each of them by email. A total of 17 participants completed the survey in its entirety reflecting a response rate of 13.49%.

While response rates of surveys administered via email or the internet vary wildly, a typical response rate for such surveys is said to be between 14 and 30 percent (Leong & Austin, 2006).

Of the participants, 11.8% were male and 88.2% were female. The average reported teaching experience in years was 8.94, with experience ranging fi-om 1 to 23 years. Par- ticipants reported the number of students they have per class ranged fi-om 8 to 25 and re- sponses yielded an average of 18.12 students per class. Data gathered regarding number of computers available in the classroom for in- structional use demonstrated a range of avail- ability fi-om 0 to 28 computers and indicated that the mean availability of computers was 8 computers per class.

Procedures All eligible participants were contacted and issued a recruiting script via email. They were then presented with an infonned consent form, in which the option of clicking "yes" on the online survey page indicated the partici- pants' consent to participate and the option of clicking "no" indicated that they did not de- sire to participate. All consenting participants were given access to a web-based survey.

To obtain the desired information, several measures were used. First, participants were presented with four scenarios that prompted them to retrieve information and knowledge that is perceived to be acquired from the course. This measure was intended to gauge the extent to which the participants are inte- grating technologies in their classroom based on forming scenarios that are relevant to 150 / Reading Improvement common occurrences within the field of edu- cation. Participants were asked to disclose, in fi"ee response from, what actions they would take in implementing best practices for each of the four scenarios based on students with- in the grade level that they currently teach.

These scenarios specifically align to course objectives of the course and are also reflective of the International Sociefy for Technology in Education's National Educational Teaching Standards for Teachers (ISTE, 2008).

The first scenario read:

One of your students, Jason, has been ill for three days and you have just received word from his mother that he has mono and will most likely be miss- ing several more days of school. You are concerned that he may fall behind his peers due to his extended absence.

How would you go about getting in- formation home to ensure that Jason remains up to date with assignments and develops an understanding of the material until his return?

The opening scenario was intended to be aligned with NETS-T standard one and Class Objective one which states that the teacher should demonstrate the abilify to, "Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativify:

Teachers use their knowledge of subject mat- ter, teaching and learning, and technology to facilitate experiences that advance student learning, creativify, and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments" (ISTE, 2008; Moody, 2011).

The second scenario presented to the par- ticipants read as follows:

Sandra has been diagnosed with dys- lexia and is on an IEP for reading but is eager to learn. She is having diffi- culty keeping up with course material because her reading abilities are so far below that of her peers. What tools or strategies might you implement to supplement Sandra's disabilify and assist her in achieving as much success as possible?

The succeeding scenario aligns with NETS-T standard two and class objective two which contends that the educator should, "design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessments incor- porating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and atti- tudes identified in the NETS-S" (ISTE, 2008; Moody, 2011).

The third scenario presented to each par- ticipant read:

Your district has entered into a collab- orative agreement with neighboring schools to engage in a service learning project for your communities that will raise awareness about the importance of recycling. What tools or strategies might you use to enhance the project's chance of success?

This third scenario is intended to measure whether the teacher demonstrates compli- ance with NETS-T standard three and class objective three, which state that the teacher should "model digital-age work and learning by exhibiting knowledge, skills, and work processes representative of an innovative professional in a global and digital sociefy" (ISTE, 2008; Moody, 2011).

Finally, the fourth scenario addressed to participants read "You have just been informed by your Superintendent that the district budget for the purchase of software has been cut completely for this school year.

What do you plan to do to negate the effects of zero technology fijnding?" This scenario is intended to gauge whether or not the teacher demonstrates a solution that would align with NETS-T standard five and class objective five which state that the teacher should "engage in professional growth and leadership by Technology Integration /151 continuously improving professional prac- tice, modeling lifelong learning, and exhib- iting leadership in school and professional community by promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resotirc- es" (ISTE, 2008; Moody, 2011).

The resulting responses were coded lrom 0 to 2 to demonstrate the level at which the participants cited they would integrate tech- nology into these representative classroom scenarios. For the purposes of this study, technology integration was defined as "the incorporation of technology resources and technology-based practices into the daily rou- tines, work, and management of schools" as this is the definition set forth by the National Center for Education Statistics (NSES, 2002, p 75). A score of 0 indicated the participant's response included no mention of technology use or integration. A score of 1 indicated the participant's response included rudimentary or administrative uses of technology only. A rudimentary or administrative use of tech- nology was defined as usage of technology that makes school life more efficient for the teacher such as: a) sending and receiving emails to set up meetings or share announce- ments; b) recording grades, attendance, and assessments; or c) posting word documents or creating worksheets. Finally, a score of 2 indicated the participant's response included what was operationally defined as sophisti- cated technology integration. Sophisticated technology integration being defined as re- sponses that indicated the utilization and in- tegration of technologies into the curriculum and using technology in a way that directly supports classroom learning goals. Examples of this level of technology integration might include: a) helping students locate resources and execute procedures such as typing essays or developing presentations and encouraging students to produce through various forms of media; b) encouraging students to solve prob- lems, communicate, and think critically and creatively; c) using technology to encourage students to explore and learn content more deeply; d) utilizing assistive technologies for individuals with special needs; and e) display- ing a firm understanding of available technol- ogies and their potential uses and benefits. In an effort to ensure accurate measurement of the interpretation and coding of participant re- sponses, interrater reliability was established.

Next, participants completed The Inven- tory of Philosophies of Education (Sadker & Sadker, 2003). This scale measures five edu- cational philosophies including essentialism, perennialism, progressivism, social recon- structionism, and existentialism on a continu- um. Educators who fall under the category of essentialism strongly emphasize basic skills, primarily reading, writing, science, math, his- tory, language and geography. Perennialism encompasses beliefs based on rationality as the primary purpose of education, stresses the Great Books, and that there are essential truths that are universally true and reoccurring. Indi- viduals who follow a fi-amework of progres- sivism stress the importance of democracy, practical activities, school and community relationships, and place primary influence on student needs and student-centered learning.

Educators who are categorized as followers of social reconstructionism attempt to improve the quality of life for students, actively strive to reduce the chances of conflict, and make concerted efforts to create a world that is more humane. Finally, teachers who associate primarily with the existentialism philosophy of education stress the ability of individuals to determine the nature and course of their own lives and emphasize the importance of personal decision making.

The measure utilized a Leikert scale with responses ranging fi-om "agree strongly" to "disagree strongly" and included questions intended to gauge educational philosophies such as "The curriculum of the schools should be subject-centered. In particular, student 152 / Reading Improvement learning should be centered around basic sub- jects such as reading, writing, history, math, and science" (Sadker & Sadker, 2003). The measure has content validify for pre-service teachers (Palak & Walls, 2009).

Finally, participants completed The Per- ception of Computers and Technology scale as created by Hogarfy, Lang, and Kromrey (2003).

This measure utilizes teachers' self-re- ported use of technology in the classroom to highlight their perceptions within four broad categories or domains which include integration; support; preparation, confidence and comfort; and attitude toward comput- er use (Hogarty et al., 2003; Palak, 2004).

The first domain, integration, is measured in three sections: (a) instructional strategies implemented by the teacher when integrating technology, (b) software utilized by teachers and students for educational activities, and (c) teachers' use of computers for various purposes. The second domain is intended to measure: (a) teacher comfort and confidence in using computer, and (b) teacher prepared- ness for computer use.

Support is measured in the third domain by assessing the following elements: (a) general school support and (b) available technical support to teachers. Tlie forth domain considers the general attitudes, affinify and aversion, associated with uti- lizing computers for instructional purposes and is intended to gauge teacher's views on the importance of integrating technology into educational practices and the impact of technology on student learning. Finally, this measure was also used to gather demographic information fi"om the participants (Hogarfy et al, 2003; Palak, 2004). The Perceptions of Computers and Technology survey was examined and validated as an instrument to measure teachers' perceptions (Hogarty et al, 2003) and the validify of the scores was sup- ported by the relationships between external variables and the subscales of the instrument.

Results In preliminary data computation, inter-rat- er reliabilify was established between three raters for the scoring of the level of technol- ogy integration across the 4 self-constructed scenarios. When scoring participant respons- es, the score that was used for data analysis was the response that met a consensus across at least two scorers which accounted for 100% of the responses, with an overall scorer agreement rate of 85%.

Hypothesis (a) A one sample t-test was utilized to com- pare participants' achieved level of technol- ogy integration on each of the four scenarios compared to the predetermined baseline score of 1. Results indicated individuals who received formal training scored significantly higher than the baseline for scenario 4 (M = 1.58, SD = .62), ( / (16) = 3.92, p < .01).

Similar results were found for scenario 3 with a difference approaching significance (M = 1.41, SD = .87), ( / (16) = \.95,p = .07).

Hypothesis (b) In order assess the eftect of scenario con- tent and levels of teaching experience on level of technology integration, a two-way analysis of variance was conducted. The dependent variable utilized was a technology integration rating ranging from 0 to 2.

The within-subjects factor was scenario content with four levels (scenario 1, scenario 2, scenario 3, scenario 4) and the between-subjects factor was level of teaching with three levels (novice, inter- mediate and advanced). Results indicated no significant main effects for scenario content and level of teaching and the interaction was also not significant.

Hypothesis (c) Pearson correlation coeflicients were then utilized to examine the relationship between level of technology integration and the five Technology Integration /153 Philosophies of Education. Level of technol- ogy integration was calculated by summing the participants' resultant scores on all four scenarios. Thus, level of technology inte- gration scores ranged fi-om a score of 0 to a score of 8, least amount to greatest amount of demonstrated technology integration, respec- tively. Results demonstrated that there was no significant correlation between participants' level of technology integration and any of the five Philosophies of Education.

Hypothesis (d) Additionally, Pearson correlation coeffi- cients were calculated to examine the relation- ship between participants' level of technology integration and several of the sub-scales from the Perceptions of Computers and Technolo- gy scale. Results indicated there was a strong positive correlation between participants' level of technology integration and Affinify Toward Computer Use {r (15) = .56, p < .05).

However, no correlation was found between participants' level of technology integration and Confidence and Comfort Using Comput- ers, General School Support for Technology Usage, or Integration of Computers into the Classroom.

Discussion The purpose of the current study was to investigate the effect that receiving formal ed- ucation at the university level has on teacher utilization and implementation of technology in the classroom. This study was developed partially in response to the contentions made in previous research that formal education at the university level and professional develop- ment are the best means for infiuencing teach- ers' attitudes and beliefs toward the usage of technology (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Palak & Walls, 2009).

In an effort to address these areas of in- terest, four hypotheses were developed. The first hypothesis was that individuals who have received formal training at the university level would have significantly higher levels of technology integration than the standard level determined fi'om previous research. The results of this hypothesis indicate that those who received formal training at the univer- sity level demonstrated significantly higher levels of technology integration across two of the four scenarios when compared to the predetermined baseline score of one which indicates that the teacher has reached the uti- lization stage of technology.

It is helpful to discuss these results by the specific scenario. For example, the fourth scenario was intended to demonstrate compli- ance with NETS-T standard five and class ob- jective five. This significant finding indicates that when participants were asked to demon- strate knowledge and use of free and available resources to combat zero technology funding, they were able to do so at a rate significantly higher than the predetermined baseline score of 1.

The third scenario was intended to gauge whether or not the educator exhibits compli- ance with NETS teaching standard three and class objective three. Analysis of this particu- lar scenario suggest that when demonstrating ability to utilize technology for the purposes of communication and collaboration in a global and digital society, individuals who have received university level direct instruc- tion on the integration of technology into the classroom integrate technology at a marginal- ly significant level when compared with the predetermined baseline score of one.

The first scenario which highlighted a situation in which a student would be miss- ing several days of school due to illness, challenged the respondent to consider ways to help the student understand the material provided within the classroom and remain up to date with assignments by utilizing various technological means. The results of the analy- sis indicated that teachers who have received university level direct instruction did not 154 / Reading Improvement integrate technology at a significantly higher level than the predetermined baseline score of one. Upon investigating the responses to Scenario 1, it was discovered that three out of the five respondents who received a score of 0 offered to personally go to the student's home to provide tutoring but did not mention technology. While investigation of technol- ogy integration was the goal of this study, the answers provided by these individuals regarding private tutoring were not properly controlled for when developing Scenario 1.

Thus, given the small sample size obtained, these scores of 0 may have had a significant impact on the data as a whole. Finally, the second scenario emphasized the need for indi- vidualized educational strategies and the use of assistive technologies to support a student with dyslexia and help her achieve success in her educational goals, primarily in the area of reading. Analysis conducted on this scenario and level of technology integration yielded results that were not significant.

The second hypothesis examined through this study was intended to explore the efl^ect of scenario content and levels of teaching experi- ences on level of technology integration. Re- sults suggested no significant main effects for either of the variables of scenario content and level of teaching.

Additionally, the interaction between scenario content and level of teaching was not indicative of a significant relationship.

Thus, the hypothesis was not supported sug- gesting that levels of technology integration do not differ significantly across scenario content or across levels of teaching experience.

The third hypothesis explored the rela- tionships between technology integration and the five Philosophies of Education. Data analysis demonstrated no significant correla- tion between participants' level of technology integration and any of the five Philosophies of Education. However, as predicted, progres- sivism did yield the strongest relationship, while perennialism and existentialism were reflective of the weakest positively correlated relationship. Essentialism demonstrated the second highest correlation between philoso- phy of education and technology integration while reconstructionism was inversely related and yielded the third strongest relationship.

This negative relationship existing between reconstructionism and technology integration indicates that the higher a participants' affin- ity toward the reconstructionsim philosophy, the less likely the participant is to integrate technology into the classroom.

The fourth hypothesis investigated whether or not the domains of perceptions of computers and technology are related to participants' measured ability to integrate technology into the classroom. Results of data analysis suggested a strong positive cor- relation exists between participants' level of technology integration and Affinity Toward Computer Use. There was not a significant relationship found between technology inte- gration and the participants' Confidence and Comfort Using Computers, General School Support for Technology Usage, or Integration of Computers into the Classroom.

Upon further investigation of the scenario content and answers provided, it could be con- tended that while teachers may acquire or have the knowledge about technology, they are not as proficient at transferring that knowledge into their instructional practices, supporting similar conclusions made in the research of Bauer and Kenton (2005). While participants were able to demonstrate knowledge of the tools and resources available, they were not as proficient at applying the knowledge of technology in the scenarios which required them to demonstrate how they would use the tools to assist students in specific situations. The results of the current study support the contentions made by previ- ous research that educators lack "technological pedagogical content knowledge" even when familiar with both available technology and pedagogical knowledge (Wetzel et al, 2008). Technology Integration /155 The investigation of the influence of philosophies of education on technology in- tegration yielded no significant relationships.

Reflecting the research of Ravitz and Becker (2000) who contend that a correlation exists between student-centered or constructivist views of learning and computer utilization, it was predicted that a significant correlation would exist between the student-centered philosophies of education (progressivism, social reconstructionism, and existentialism).

No correlation was found between any of the five philosophies of education mirroring find- ings reported in a study conducted by Judson (2006).

The results of the analysis conducted on the four sub-scales of the Perceptions of Computers and Technology scale demonstrat- ed a strong correlational relationship between level of technology integration and Affinify Toward Computer Use. This finding parallels the work of Palak and Walls (2009) and Hsu et al. (2007) who found that one of the four primary factors related to technology integra- tion is teacher attitudes and beliefs regarding the usage of technology and its effectiveness.

Contrarily, however, these researchers also suggest that comfort levels regarding usage of technology are among the primary fac- tors influencing technology integration. This contention appears in contrast in the current research where no correlation between tech- nology and Confidence and Comfort Using Computers was found. Finally, no correlation was found between the measure of technology integration developed by the researcher and the sub-scale of Integration of Computers into the Classroom. The lack of correlation here could be due to a misalignment in definition regarding technology integration and could also be related to lack of magnitude of this small scale study.

There are several notable limitations to the data gathered. Most notably is the small sample size. A widely accepted historical guideline for minimum number of suggested participants for associational designs is 30 participants (Gliner, Morgan, & Leech, 2009).

Unfortunately, due to the constraints placed on those available in the population and the low response rate associated with online sur- veys, this standard number of participants was not met (Green & Salkind, 2005).

The reliabilify and validity of self-re- port measures is also frequently questioned.

Researchers Willis, Thompson and Sadera (1999) who conducted research specifically on the effectiveness of surveys as a measure of technology integration indicate that too much educational technology exploration is reliant upon surveys which may not be the most effective or accurate measure of tech- nology integration. Simultaneously, much research is available supporting contentions that while teachers may profess to engage in student-centered practices and have stu- dent-centered beliefs, these beliefs resonate in inconsistent practices (Mayer & Goldsberry, 1987; Raymond, 1993; Simmons et al., 1999).

While it is noted that direct observation of teachers in the classroom would undoubtedly produce a more accurate and precise measure of technology integration, this was not a plau- sible option for the research at hand.

However, the findings of the current re- search have practical significance to the field of education as a whole. The results of this research indicate that there is still work to be done in the area of finding the best means to influence teachers to integrate technology into the classroom. While it appears universify lev- el direct instruction is a step in the right direc- tion, participants in this study, representative of the general teaching population, are still not answering the call to integrate technol- ogy into the classroom for student-centered learning purposes and have not integrated it into the curriculum at the present time. The supposition for universify level direct instruc- tion and professional development in the area 156 / Reading Improvement of technology integration into the classroom is to move beyond training educators in the application of technological tools. The goals of technology integration would be best met by teaching individuals at the university level and through professional development how to integrate technology into the curriculum through student-centered practices and to pro- vide more practical implications for its use.

Author note Please address correspondences to: Dr.

Jenn Bonds-Raacke, FHSU Department of Psychology, 600 Park Street, Hays, KS 67601 or email: [email protected]. The au- thors would like to thank Dr. Robert Moody for his valuable contributions to the study.

References Angeli, C , & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, de- velopment and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technology and pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education, 52. 154-168.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) Committee on Innovation and Technology.

(2008).

Handbook of technological pedagogical con- tent knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York:

Routledge.

Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn't happening.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13 (4), 519-546.

Brantley-Dias, L., Kinuthia, W., Shofl&ier, M. B., DeCastro, C, & Rigole, N. (2007). Developing pedagogical tech- nology integration content knowledge in preservice teachers: A case study approach. Journal of Research on Computing in Teacher Education, 39, 22-43.

Choy, D., Wong, A. F. L., & Gao, P. (2009). Student teachers' intentions and actions on integrating technology into their classrooms during student teaching: A Singapore study. Journal of Research on Technology Education, 42 (2), 175-195.

Ciflientes, L., Maxwell, G., & Bulu, S. (2011).

Technology integration through professional learn- ing community. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(\), 59-82.

Cole, S. L. (2000). Technology has found its way into our schools...now what?.

TechTrends, 44 (6), 23-27.

Ertmer, P A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010).

Teacher technology change: how knowledge, con- fidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology Education, 42 (3), 225-284.

Fajet, W., Bello, M., Leftwich, S. A., Mesler, J. L., & Shaver, A. N. (2005) Pre service teachers' percep- tions in beginning education classes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,1X1-1X1.

Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2009).

Research methods in applied settings:

An integrated approach to design and analysis.

(2°'' ed.).

New York, NY: Routledge Academic.

Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: analyzing and under- standing data (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Higher Education.

Gronseth, S., Brush, T., Ottenhreit-Leflwich, A., Strycker, J., Abaci, S., Easterling, et al. (2010). Equipping the next generation of teachers:

Technology preparation and practice. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(l),!!^-^^.

Ham, V. (2010). Participant-directed evaluation: Using teachers' own inquiries to evaluate professional devel- opment in technology integration. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27 (I), 22-29.

Hogarty, K.Y., Lang, T.R., & Kromrey, J.D. (2003).

Another look at technology use in classrooms: The development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers' perceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(1), 139-162.

Hooper, S. & Rieber, L.P. (1999). Teaching, instruction, and technology. In A. C. Ornstein & L.S. Behar- Horenstein (Eds,), Contemporary issues in curricu- lum, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 252-264.

Hsu, Y, Wu, H., & Hwang, F. (2007). Factors influenc- ing junior high school teachers' computer-based instructional practices regarding their instructional evolution stages. Educational Technolog^' & Society, 10(4), 118-130.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2000). National educational technology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Teehnology in Education (ISTE).

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). ISTE NETS for Teachers 2008.

Retrieved IVom http://www.iste.org/standards/nets- for-teachers/nets-for-teachers-2008.aspx Jacobs, H. H. (2010). Curriculum 21: essential education for a changing world.

Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connec- tion? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 74(3), 581-597. Technology Integration /157 Kulik, J.A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. L. Baker, and H.F.

O'Neil, Jr. (Eds.). Technology assessment in educa- tion and training.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Hrlbaum.

Kim, K., Jain, S., Westhoff, G., & Rezabek, L. (2008).

A quantitative exploration of preservice teachers' intent to use computer-based technology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35 (3), llS-lil.

Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers:

What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25 (3), 87-97.

Leong, F.T.

& Austin, J.T. (Eds.). (2006). The Psychology Research Handbook, 2nd Edition. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Mayer, R.H., & Goldsberry, L. (1987, April). The de- velopment of the beliefs/practice relationships in two student teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

McNabb, M., Hawkes, M., & Rouk, U. (1999). Critical issues in evaluating the effectiveness of technolo- gy. Proceedings of the Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Technology. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/ Technology/rechConf/1999/confsum.htmlent Moody, R. A. (2011). Syllabus for AEP 800 Introduction to Utilization of Technology in the Classroom.

(Available from the Fort Hays State University Department of Education, 711 Park Street, Rarick Hall, Hays, KS 67601) National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2002).

Technology in schools: suggestions, tools and guidelines for assessing technology in elemen- tary and secondary education. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003313.pdf National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2000).

Teachers' tools for the 21st century:

A report on teach- er use of technology. U.S. Department of Education.

Office of Educational Research and improvement.

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nces.

ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.as?pubid=2000102 Paiak, D. (2004).

Teachers ' beliefs in relation to their instructional technology practices. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://wvuscholar.

wvu.edu:8881//exlibris/dtl/d3_l/apachc_mcdi- aL2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZ- V9tZWRpYS83MTAy.pdf Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers' beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (4), 417-441.

Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 413-429.

Ravitz, J., & Becker, H.J. (2000, April). Evidence for computer use being related to more constructtv- ist practices and to changes in practice in a more constructivist-compatible direction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Raymond, A.M.

(1993, October). Unraveling the rela- tionships between beginning elementary teachers' mathematics beliefs and teaching practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education, Monterey, CA.

Sadker, M.P., & Sadker, D.M. (2003).

Teachers, schools, and society (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Sandholtz, J. H.

Ringstaff, C, & Dwyer, D. C. (1996).

The evolution of instruction in technology: Rich classroom. In J. H. Sandholz, C.

Ringstaff, & D.C.

Dwyer (Eds.), Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms.

New York and London:

Teachers College Press, 33-54.

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current re- search has to say.

The Milken Exchange on Education Technology, Santa Monica, CA. Retrieved from http://web.mff.org/pubform.taf Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching:

Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand:

Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, I5{2), 4-14.

Simmons, P.E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Flinnegan, B., Crockett, D., et al. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 930-954.

Sivin-Kachala, J. (1998). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, 1990-1997. Software Publisher's Association.

Tamin, R. M., Bernerd, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P.C., & Schmid, F. (2011). What forty years of re- search says about the impact of technology on learn- ing: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 4-28.

Wetzel, K., Foulger, TS. & Williams, M. K. (2008). The evolution of the required educational technology course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25 (2), 67-79 Willis, J., Thompson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology and teacher education: Status and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, •#7(4), 29-45. Copyright ofReading Improvement isthe property ofProject Innovation, Inc.anditscontent may notbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without thecopyright holder's expresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles for individual use.