Journal of Research on Technology in Education 409
TheInfluenceofTeachers’TechnologyUseonInstructionalPractices
GlendaC.RakesThe University of Tennessee—Martin
ValerieS.FieldsLouisiana Campus Compact
KareeE.CoxThe University of Memphis
AbstractThis study investigated the relationship between technology use and skills and the use of constructivist instructional practices among teachers in rural schools. Teachers in this study responded to Moersch’s instrument, the Levels of Technology Implementation (LoTi). The LoTi was administered to the fourth and eighth grade teachers in 11 school districts to determine if levels of classroom technology use and personal computer use predicted the use of constructivist instructional practices. Results indicate that there is a significant, positive relationship between both levels of classroom technology use and personal computer use and the use of constructivist instructional practices, with personal computer use being the strongest predictor. (Keywords: levels of technology implementation, constructivism.)
InTRODUCTIOnEducatorsstrugglewiththeproblemofovercomingtheinertiaofinstruction-
alpracticesinthetraditionalclassroom(Trimble,2003).Inthesetraditionalclassrooms,studentsaretypicallynotprovidedwithwhole,dynamiclearningexperiences,butratherwithlimited,arbitraryactivities.Schoolsfrequentlyteachinformationfromthevariousdisciplineswithoutprovidingadequatecon-textualsupportwithopportunitiesforstudentstoapplywhattheyaretaught.“Theresultinginauthenticityofclassroomactivitymakesitdifficultforchildrentoseehowschoollearningappliestotheirlives”(Perchman,1992,p.33).
Brooks(2004)believesthatthereisalackoffocusonhigher-orderthinkingskillsbecauseofanemphasisonstandardizedtesting.Shereferstosuchtestingassingle-eventmeasuresofaccountability,whichserveasasubstituteforpre-paringstudentsforthemanydifferentworldsbeyondschoolclassrooms.“Likeagriculture,educationhasreplacednaturalprocesseswithartificialones.Overtime,theseartificialpracticeshavebecomecommon”(p.9).
Thislackofattentiontoauthenticexperiencesineducationisparticularlytroublingwhenconsideringopportunitiesforchildreninpoor,under-funded,oftenruralareasoftheUnitedStates.Researchindicatesnationwidelowper-formanceinmanysubjectareas(Bracey,2002;Collins&Dewees,2001;Riley,2002).Riley’s(2002)researchfurtherindicatesthatsomegeographicareas,particularlyruralareas,arereportinglowperformanceandthattheachievementgapispersistentandintrinsicallylinkedtothefactthatmillionsofthenation’schildrenstillliveinpoverty.
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
410 Summer2006:Volume 38 Number 4
Childreninruralschoolsfrequentlydonothavethesamelevelofaccesstoresourcesandexperiencesaschildrenwholiveinsuburbanandurbanareas.BeesonandStrange(2003)reportthat43%ofthenation’spublicschoolsareinruralcommunitiesorsmalltownsoffewerthan25,000people,and31%ofthenation’schildrenattendtheseschools.Povertyisthelargestpersistentchallengeruralschoolsface.Percapitaincome,salaries,computeruseintheclassrooms,schooladministrativecosts,andtransportationareamongthetopchallengesforruralschools(Beeson&Strange,2003).
Anotherseriousproblemplaguingruralschoolsisdifficultyinhiringandretainingqualifiedteachers.Ingersoll(2004)examineddataregardingstaffingissuesinhigh-povertyschoolsinbothruralandurbanareas.Heconcludedthatfactorstiedtothecharacteristicsandconditionsoftheseschoolsarebehindtheteachershortageintheseschools.Oneofthemainreasonsforhighturn-overratesintheseschoolsisthefactthatteachersinhigh-povertyschoolsarefrequentlypaidlessthanteachersinothertypesofschools.Othersignificantfactorsrelatedtostaffingproblemsintheseschoolsarerelatedtoinadequateadministrativesupport,excessiveintrusionsonteachingtime,studentdisciplineproblems,andlimitedfacultyinputindecisionsrelatedtotheschools.
COnSTRUCTIVISMAnDLEARnInGOnewayofincreasingauthenticityintheclassroomisthroughtheuseof
constructivistteachingmethods(Voss&Post,1988;Wenglinsky,2004;White&Frederiksen,1998).Constructivismisalearningtheorythatproposeslearn-erscreatetheirownunderstandingastheycombinewhattheyalreadybelievetobetruebasedonablendofpastexperienceswithnewexperiences(Richard-son,1997).ConstructivismasaphilosophyoflearningcanbetracedprimarilytotheworkofJohnDewey(1916)andJeanPiaget(1973).Vygotsky’swork(1978)alsocontributedtothemovementtowardconstructivism.Throughoutmostoftheearlytomiddlepartofthe20thcentury,theoriesoflearningshiftedfromabehavioristorientationbasedonobservablephenomenontoacognitiveorientationinthe1970sthatemphasizedinternalcognitiveprocessing.Bythe1980s,ashifttowardconstructivismbecameevident.Theperceptionthatlearn-ingisaninternallearnerprocesscontinuestogrow.
Dewey(1916)believedthatlearningwasbasedonactivity.Knowledgecouldonlyemergefromacontextinwhichideasweredrawnoutofcircumstancesthathadmeaningtothelearner.Hebelievedthatthelearningcontextmustbeasocialcontextinwhichstudentsworktogethertobuildknowledge.Piaget’sview(1973)oflearningwasbasedonhisviewofchilddevelopment.Hebelievedthatunderstandingisbasedondiscoveryandactiveinvolvement.Vygotsky(1978)believedthatchildrenshouldbeencouragedtolinkconceptsandderivetheirownideasfromthoseintroducedtothem.Hedevelopedasociallearningper-spectivethroughwhichchildrenlearnthroughinteractionwithothers.
Overthepastseveraldecades,botheducatorsandpolicymakershavearguedwhetherschoolsshouldemphasizefactsorcriticalthinkingskills.Muchofthisdebatehasnotbeenbasedonempiricaldata.Wenglinsky(2004),usingdatafromtheNationalAssessmentofEducationalProgress(NAEP),concludedthat
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 411
aclearpatternemergesfromthesedata.Eventhoughstudentsmustlearnfactsandbasicskills,thedatasuggestthatemphasisonadvancedreasoningskillspromoteshigherstudentperformance.
Theuseofconstructivistpedagogicalmodelspromotesthismeaningfultypeoflearningprocess,aprocessinwhichlearninghelpsstudentsmakesenseofnewinformationexperiencedinauthenticproblemsbyintegratingthenewinformationwithpreviouslyconstructedknowledge(vonGlasersfeld,1981).Authenticproblemsoractionsareill-structuredcomplexproblemsanalogoustothosestudentsfaceineverydayexperienceandwillfaceintheirfutureprofes-sions.Inthelearningprocess,theseproblemshelplearnersorganizetheirlearn-ingandfacilitategrowthinreasoningandproblemsolvingskills(Voss&Post,1988;White&Frederiksen,1998).
Thephilosophyofconstructivismisnotnewtoeducation,butthewaysinwhichitisappliedtoeducationarestillevolving.Onerelativelynewtoolthatcanplayavitalroleintheuseofconstructivistteachingpracticesistechnology-enhancedinstruction.
TECHnOLOGyAnDCOnSTRUCTIVISMOneofthefirstandmostvocalproponentsoftheuseoftechnologytopro-
motethistypeofmeaningfullearningwasSeymourPapert(1980,1994)whobelievedthatcomputerscouldprovidepowerfultoolsforlearning.Healsonotedthatschoolsfrequentlyignoredthebroadcapacitiescomputershaveforinstructionalsupport,isolatingthemfromthelearningprocessratherthaninte-gratingthemintoallareasofthecurriculum.
Whenconstructivismisusedeffectively,teachersincorporatetheideasofstudentstopreparethelessonsthattheywillteachintheirclassrooms.Teachersarebeginningtousetechnologyasatooltopromotestudents’abilitytoreasonandsolveauthenticproblems.“Teachersuseexistingtechnologytotransformclassroomsintodynamiccentersofpurposefulandexperientiallearningthatintuitivelymovestudentsfromawarenesstoauthenticaction”(Moersch,1998,p.53).Theappropriateuseoftechnologycanreinforcehighercognitiveskilldevelopmentandcomplexthinkingskillssuchasproblemsolving,reasoning,decisionmaking,andscientificinquiry(Moersch,1999).
Whenteachersthoroughlyintegratetechnologyintotheclassroom,construc-tivistlearningenvironmentscanevolve.Aconstructivistlearningenvironment(Reeves,1998)isaplaceinwhichlearnersworktogetherandsupporteachotherastheyuseavarietyoftoolsandinformationresourcesintheirguidedpursuitoflearninggoalsandproblem-solvingactivities.Constructivistlearn-ingenvironmentsfrequentlyencompassmanydifferentapplicationsofmediaandtechnology(Becker&Ravitz,1999;Middleton&Murray,1999;Rakes,Flowers,Casey,&Santana,1999).Suchenvironmentscreateactiveclassroomsthatcombinethetoolsofconstructivismwithcommunicationandvisualizationtoolsthatenablecommunicationandcollaborationamonglearnersinasocio-culturalcontext.Increasedstudentachievementcanresultbecauseofthesyn-ergycreatedthroughdynamicinteractions(Dwyer,1994;Sandholtz,Ringstaff,&Dwyer,1997).
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
412 Summer2006:Volume 38 Number 4
Inaten-yearstudyofhowtheroutineuseoftechnologybyteachersandstudentsaffectedstudentlearning,theAppleClassroomofTomorrow(ACOT)projectstudiedfiveclassroomsthroughouttheUnitedStates(Dwyer,1994;Sandholtz,Ringstaff,&Dwyer,1997).Researchersprovidedeachclassroomwithawidevarietyoftechnologytools,trainingforteachers,andacoordinatorateachschooltoprovidetechnologyassistance.Theproject’sprimarypurposewastoinvestigatehowroutineuseofcomputersandtechnologyinfluenceteachingandlearning.
TheanalysisofdatafromtheevaluationoftheACOTprojectwasbasedonadatabaseofmorethan20,000entries.Researcherssawtechnology“profoundlydisturbtheinertiaoftraditionalclassrooms”(Dwyer,p.7).Researcherssawanincreaseintheuseofconstructivistteachingstrategieswiththeuseoftechnol-ogyintheclassroom,observationsalsosupportedbyresearchfromRakesetal.(1999)andBeckerandRavitz(1999).Teachersencouragedcooperativelearn-ingandcollaborativeeffortsastheyusedmorecomplextasksandmaterialsintheirinstructionalongwithmoreperformance-basedevaluation.
Thereisaneedforfurtherresearchonthelinkbetweenteachers’technologyuseandclassroominstructionalpractices.Inspiteoftheapparentcommitmenttotechnologyofsomeschools,itappearsthatmanyteachersusecomputerstosup-porttheircurrenttraditionalteachingpracticesratherthanasatooltopromotemoreinnovative,constructivistpractices(Cuban,2001).Muchofthecurrentteachertechnologytrainingprogramsandotherusesoftechnology-relatedfundsmaynotbedeliveringthedesiredresult:apositiveeffectonstudentlearning.
Forexample,DohertyandOrlofsky(2001)studied500studentsingrades7–12.Aspartofthisresearch,investigatorsaskedstudentshowtheirteachersusedcomputersforlearning.Thesurveyrevealedthatmoststudentssaidtheirteach-ersdonotusecomputersinsophisticatedways.Ifteachersarenotprovidedtheusefulsupportneededtointegratecomputersintotheoverallframeworkoftheclassroom,itisunlikelythattheirstudentswillusecomputersinwaysthatwillimprovelearning(Fuller,2000).
Inorderfortechnologytopositivelyaffectteachingmethods—andthereforestudentlearning—teachersmustpossessthetechnology-relatedskillsneededtousetechnologyandmustactivelyusethesetoolsintheirclassrooms(Iding,Crosby,&Speitel,2002).Inordertoencouragethesebehaviors,teachersneedappropriate,research-basedtraining;opportunitiestopracticetheseskills;accesstotechnologytools;andsupport,bothintermsofencouragementfromschooladministrators(Dawson&Rakes,2003)andtechnicalsupport(Fuller,2000).Teachersandstudentscannotusecomputersthatdonotwork.
Increasingtechnologyusecancreateavehiclethroughwhicheducatorscanaddressteachingandlearningopportunitiesforallstudents.TheneedfortheseopportunitiesisespeciallyapparentinpoorruralareasoftheUnitedStates.
RESEARCHQUESTIOnSThepresentstudyexploreswhetherteacheruseoftechnology,bothinthe
classroomandforpersonaluse,relatestotheuseofconstructivistteachingprac-ticesandaddressesfourspecificresearchquestions.
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 413
Research Question 1:WhatarethepredominateteacherlevelsontheLevelofTechnologyImplementation,PersonalComputerUse,andCurrentInstruc-tionalPracticesscales?
Research Question 2:Istherearelationshipbetweenteachers’CurrentIn-structionalPracticesscoresandteachers’LevelofTechnologyImplementationscores?
Research Question 3:Istherearelationshipbetweenteachers’CurrentIn-structionalPracticesscoresandteachers’PersonalComputerUsescores?
Research Question 4:Istherearelationshipbetweenteachers’CurrentIn-structionalPracticesscoresandteachers’scoresonboththeLevelsofTechnol-ogyImplementationandPersonalComputerUsescales?
POPULATIOnThepurposivesampleforthisstudywascomprisedof186fourthandeighth
gradeteachersfrom36elementaryschools,17middle/juniorhighschools,and13highschoolsfrom11ruralschooldistrictsinasouthernstate.The11dis-trictswerechosenfromthosedesignatedbytheDeltaRuralSystemicInitiative.Thepurposeofthisfederalprogramwastobringaboutreformindeltacom-munitiesinthreesouthernstates.TheseschooldistrictsalsoreceivedafederallyfundedTechnologyLiteracyChallengegrantthatprovidedequipmentandpro-fessionaldevelopmentforteachersintheuseoftechnology.Thetotalprovidedforequipmentwas$10,931,503.Eachdistrictwasprovidedabout300hoursofprofessionaldevelopmentforteachers.Theequipmentandtraininghadbeeninplaceforayearpriortocollectionofthesurveydata.
Onlyschooldistrictsthatservedpopulationsthatconsistedof20%ormorefamilieswhoseincomeswerebelowthepovertylinewereincludedinthisstudy.Theschoolsincludedinthesampleincludedsimilarminorityaswellasfree-andreduced-lunchpopulations.Inthesampleschools,thepercentoffreeandreducedlunchesrangedfrom54%to91%.Fromthetotalpurposivesampleof186teachers,123volunteeredtoparticipate.Seventy-onefourthgradeteachersand52eighthgradeteachersparticipatedinthestudy;thosegradeswerechosenbecausethestate’s“highstakestesting”isdoneatthosetwogradelevels.
METHODOLOGyTeachersinthestudyrespondedtoafifty-iteminstrument,theLevelofTech-
nologyImplementation(LoTi).TheLoTiwasadministeredtothefourthandeighthgradeteacherstodetermineiftheirlevelofclassroomtechnologyuseandpersonalcomputerusepredictedtheirCurrentInstructionalPractices.Theinstrumentgeneratedaprofileforeachparticipantinthreedomains:LevelofTechnologyImplementation(LoTi),PersonalComputerUse(PCU),andCur-rentInstructionalPractices(CIP).
InstrumentationTheLevelsofTechnologyImplementation(LoTi):AGuideforMeasuring
ClassroomTechnologyUsewasinitiallytestedinAugustof1997andinJuneof1998.Moersch(1995,1998)determinedreliabilitybyusingCronbach’s
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
414 Summer2006:Volume 38 Number 4
Alpha,whichshowedareliabilitymeasureof.74fortheLoTi,.81forPersonalComputerUse,and.73forCurrentInstructionalPractices.(Peopleinterestedinusingtheinstrumentmustregisterinordertoseetheentireinstrument.Informationconcerningalldetailsrelatedtotheinstrumentcanbefoundathttp://www.loticonnection.com.)
Levels of Technology Implementation.TheLoTiinstrumentmeasurestheteacher’slevelofclassroomtechnologyimplementationrangingfrom0(non-use)to6(refinement)asdescribedinTable1below.
Table1:LevelsofTechnologyImplementationSummary
Level Description0Non-Use
Thereisnovisibleevidenceofcomputeraccessorinstructionaluseofcomputersintheclassroom.
1Awareness
Availableclassroomcomputer(s)areusedprimarilyforteacherproductivity(e.g.,e-mail,wordprocessing,gradingprograms).
2Exploration
Studenttechnologyprojects(e.g.,designingWebpages,researchviatheInternet,creatingmultimediapresentations)focusonthecontentunderinvestigation.
3Infusion
Tool-basedapplications(e.g.,graphing,concept-mapping)areprimarilyusedbystudentsforanalyzingdata,makinginferences,anddrawingconclusions.
4aIntegration(Mechanical)
Theuseofoutsideresourcesand/orinterventionsaidtheteacherindevelopingchallenginglearningexperiencesusingavailableclassroomcomputers.
4bIntegration(Routine)
Teacherscanreadilydesignlearningexperienceswithnooutsideassistancethatempowerstudentstoidentifyandsolveauthenticproblemsusingtechnology.
5Expansion
Teachersactivelyusetechnologyandinformationfromoutsideentitiestoexpandstudentexperiencesdirectedatproblemsolv-ing,issuesresolution,andstudentaction.
6Refinement
Computersprovideaseamlessandalmosttransparentmediumforinformationqueries,problemsolving,and/orproductdevelop-ment.
TheLevelsofTechnologyImplementation(LoTi)scalemeasuresauthenticclassroomtechnologyuseinsevencategorieswithresponsestostatementsof1–2indicating“NotTrueofMeNow,”3–5“SomewhatTrueofMe,”and6–7“VeryTrueofMeNow.”
Current Instructional Practices. TheCurrentInstructionalPractices(CIP)scalemeasuresteachers’classroompracticesrelatingtoasubject-matterversusalearner-basedcurriculumapproachbasedoneightelementsasdescribedinTable2.
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 415
Table2:CurrentInstructionalPracticesSummary
LevelofIntensity Description
0 Oneormorequestionswerenotapplicabletotherespondent.1 Instructionalpracticesaresubject-matterbased;strategiesleantoward
lecturesand/orteacher-leadpresentations;studentevaluationistradi-tional.
2 Theparticipantsupportsinstructionalpracticesconsistentwithasub-ject-matterbasedapproachtoteachingandlearning,butnotatthesamelevelofintensityorcommitmentasLevel3.Teachingstrategiestendtoleantowardlecturesand/orteacher-ledpresentations.
3 Teacherstillusesasubject-matterapproach,butalsosupportstheuseofstudent-directedprojectsthatprovideopportunitiesforstudentstodeterminethe“lookandfeel”ofafinalproductbasedonspecificcontentstandards.
4 Teachermayfeelcomfortablesupportingorimplementingeitherasubject-matterorlearning-basedapproach.Learningactivitiesarediversifiedandbasedmostlyonstudentquestions,theteacherservesmoreasafacilitator,student-projectsareprimarilystudent-directed,andalternativeassessmentstrategiesareused.
5 Instructionalpracticestendtoleanmoretowardalearner-basedap-proach.Theessentialcontentembeddedinthestandardsemergesbasedonwhatstudents“needtoknow”astheyattempttoresearchandsolveissuesofimportancetothemusingcriticalthinkingandproblem-solvingskills.
6 Theteacheratthislevelofintensitysupportsinstructionalpracticesconsistentwithalearner-basedapproach,butnotatthesamelevelofintensityorcommitmentasLevel7.
7 Instructionalpracticesalignexclusivelywithalearner-basedapproach.Theessentialcontentembeddedinthestandardsemergesbasedonstudents“needtoknow”astheyattempttoresearchandsolveissuesofimportancetothemusingcriticalthinkingandproblem-solvingskills.Learningactivitiesandteachingstrategiesarediversifiedanddrivenbystudentquestions.Assessmentincludesperformance-based,journals,peerreviews,self-reflections.
TheCurrentInstructionalPractices(CIP)scalemeasuresteachers’currentclassroompracticesrelatingtoasubject-matterversusalearner-basedcurricu-lumapproachbasedoneightintensitylevelswithresponsestostatementscon-sistingof1–2indicating“NotTrueofMeNow,”3–5“SomewhatTrueofMe,”and6–7“VeryTrueofMeNow.”
Personal Computer Use. ThePersonalComputerUse(PCU)scalemeasurestheskillandcomfortlevelofteacherswhenusingtechnologyforpersonalusebasedoneightintensitylevelsasdescribedinTable3below.
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
416 Summer2006:Volume 38 Number 4
Table3:PersonalComputerUseSummary
LevelofIntensity Description
0 Theparticipantdoesnotfeelcomfortableorhavetheskillleveltousecomputersforpersonaluse.Participantsrelymoreontheuseofover-headprojectors,chalkboards,and/orpaper/pencilactivitiesthanusingcomputersforconveyinginformationorclassroommanagementtasks.
1 Theparticipantdemonstrateslittleskilllevel.Participantsmayhaveageneralawarenessofvarioustechnology-relatedtoolssuchaswordprocessors,spreadsheets,ortheInternet,butgenerallyarenotusingthem.
2 Theparticipantdemonstrateslittletomoderateskilllevel.ParticipantsmayoccasionallybrowsetheInternet,usee-mail,oruseawordpro-cessorprogram,yetmaynothavetheconfidenceorfeelcomfortabletroubleshootingsimple“technology”problemsorglitchesastheyarise.Atschool,theiruseofcomputersmaybelimitedtoagradebookorattendanceprogram.
3 Theparticipantdemonstratesmoderateskill.Participantsmaybegintobecome“regular”usersofselectedapplicationssuchastheInternet,e-mail,orawordprocessorprogram.Theymayalsofeelcomfortabletroubleshootingsimple“technology”problems,butrelyonmostlytechnologysupportstafforotherstoassistthemwithanytrouble-shootingissues.
4 Theparticipantdemonstratesmoderatetohighskill.Participantscom-monlyuseabroaderrangeofsoftwareapplicationsincludingmultime-dia(e.g.,PowerPoint,Hyperstudio),spreadsheets,andsimpledatabaseapplications.Theytypicallyareabletotroubleshootsimplehardwareand/orperipheralproblemswithoutassistancefromtechnologysup-portstaff.
5 Theparticipantdemonstrateshighskilllevel.Participantsarecom-monlyabletousethecomputertocreatetheirownWebpages,producesophisticatedmultimediaproducts,and/oreffortlesslyusecommonproductivityapplications(e.g.,FileMakerPro,Excel),desk-toppublishingsoftware,andWeb-basedtoolsTheyarealsoabletotroubleshootmosthardwareand/orperipheralproblemswithoutas-sistancefromtechnologysupportstaff.
6 Theparticipantdemonstrateshightoextremelyhighskilllevel.Par-ticipantsaresophisticatedintheuseofmostmultimedia,Web-based,desktoppublishing,andWeb-basedapplications.Theytypicallyserveas“troubleshooters”forothersinneedofassistanceandsometimesseekcertificationforachievingselectedtechnology-relatedskills.
7 Theparticipantisanexpertcomputeruser,troubleshooter,and/ortechnologymentor.Theytypicallyareinvolvedintrainingothersonanytechnology-relatedtaskandareusuallyinvolvedinselectedsup-portgroupsfromaroundtheworldthatallowthemaccesstoanswersforalltechnology-basedinquiriestheymayhave.
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 417
ThePersonalComputerUse(PCU)scalemeasurestheteacher’scomfortandskilllevelwithcomputersbasedoneightintensitylevelswithresponsestostate-mentsof1–2indicating“NotTrueofMeNow,”3–5“SomewhatTrueofMe,”and6–7“VeryTrueofMeNow.”
LimitationsResultsofthisstudyshouldbeinterpretedinviewofthefollowinglimitations.1. Thequestionnairedidnotconsiderthecomplexityofsoftwareapplica-
tionsusedattheschoolsitesorthefrequencyoftheiruse.2. Thesampleisrestrictedtofourthandeighthgradeteachersin11poor,
ruralschooldistrictsinasouthernstate.3. Thestudyexploredrelationshipsamongvariables;therefore,theanalysis
cannotestablishcauseandeffectrelationships.4. Theremayexistunexaminedfactorsaffectingtherelationshipbetween
technologyusebyteachersandtheirinstructionalpracticesthatarenotaccountedforinthemethodology.
5. Allinformationinthesurveyisself-reporteddata.Theinformationpro-videdwasbasedexclusivelyontheperceptionsoftheparticipants.
RESULTSAnDDISCUSSIOnResearch Question 1:WhatarethepredominateteacherlevelsontheLevel
ofTechnologyImplementation,PersonalComputerUse,andCurrentInstruc-tionalPracticescales?
Levels of Technology Implementation Results Summary. Forthissample,thepredominatelevelisO(Non-Use).ALevel0impliestechnology-basedtools(e.g.,computers)areeither(1)completelyunavailableintheclassroom,(2)noteasilyaccessiblebytheclassroomteacher,or(3)thereisalackoftimetopursueelectronictechnologyimplementation.Existingtechnologyispredominatelytext-based(e.g.,dittosheets,chalkboard,overheadprojector).
Figure1(page418)displaystheLoTi profileandapproximatesthedegreetowhicheachrespondentiseithersupportingorimplementingtheinstructionalusesoftechnologyinaclassroomsetting.Basedontheirresponses,35.1%oftherespondents’highestlevelcorrespondedwithLevel0(Non-Use).Thisindi-catesparticipantsperceivealackofaccesstoortimetousetechnology.Theper-centofthepopulationfortheremaininglevelsincludeLevel1at11.2%,Level2at18.7%,Level3at13.2%,Level4aat20.1%,andLevel4bat.7%.NoneoftheteachersinthesamplescoredatthehighestlevelsofExpansion(Level5),orRefinement(Level6).
Thisrepresentsanalarminglyhighnumberofteacherswhoexpressalackoftechnologyusegiventheamountoftechnologytrainingandequipmentpro-videdforthesepoor,ruralschooldistricts.Despitesubstantialgrant-fundedinfusionsofmoneyfortrainingandequipment,teachersinthissamplestillperceivedtheirabilitytousetechnologyasextremelylimited,whetherbecauseoflackofaccesstoequipmentorlackoftimetousetechnology.
Personal Computer Use Results Summary.Thepredominateintensitylevelforthissampleis3,indicatingmoderateskilllevels.Figure2(page418)dis-
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
418 Summer2006:Volume 38 Number 4
playsthePersonalComputerUse(PCU)resultsthataddresseachrespondent’scomfortandproficiencylevelwithcomputeruse(troubleshootingsimplehard-wareproblems,usingmultimediaapplications)athomeorintheworkplace).Level0(0.9%)indicatesthattherespondentsdonotfeelcomfortableorhavetheskillleveltousecomputersforpersonaluse.Level1(8.3%)indicateslittleskilllevels.Level2(20.4%)indicateslittletomoderateskilllevels.Level3(22.2%)indicatesmoderateskilllevels.Level4(20.4%)indicatesmoderatetohighskilllevels.Level5(15.7%)indicateshighskilllevels.Level6(10.2%)in-dicateshightoextremelyhighskilllevels.Level7(1.9%)indicatestherespon-dentsareexpertcomputerusersand/ortechnologymentors.
Figure 2. Personal Computer Use.
Figure 1. Levels of Technology Implementation.
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 419
Onlyslightlymorethanone-fourth(27.8%)oftherespondentsscoredinthehighestthreeskilllevels(5,6,and7).Again,theseresultsaredisappointingcomingfromapopulationthatwastargetedfortechnologytrainingandequipment.Thelevelsofteacherskillandcomfortlevelswithcomputerswerelowerthanexpected.
Current Instructional Practices Results Summary.ThepredominateintensitylevelfortheCIPforthissampleis4.Figure3displaystheCurrentInstructionalPractices(CIP),whichaddressestherespondents’supportfororimplementationofinstructionalpracticesconsistentwithaconstructivist,learner-basedcurricu-lumdesign(i.e.,learningmaterialsdeterminedbytheproblemareasunderinves-tigation,multipleassessmentstrategiesintegratedauthenticallythroughoutthecurriculum,teacherasco-learner/facilitator,focusonlearner-basedquestions).
FortheCIPscale,responsesatLevel0(0.9%)indicatethatoneormoreques-tionswerenotapplicabletotheparticipants.Level1(2.8%)responsesindicatethatinstructionalpracticesaresubjectbased.Level2(8.3%)responsesindicatealevelsimilartoLevel1,butwithmoreintensity.Level3(25.7%)responsesindi-catethattheparticipantsuseasubject-matterapproach,butalsosupporttheuseofstudent-directedprojects.Level4(26.6%)responsesindicatethattherespon-dentsmayfeelcomfortablesupportingorimplementingeitherasubject-matterorlearning-basedapproach.Level5(23.9%)responsesindicatethattheparticipants’instructionalpracticestendtoleanmoretowardalearner-basedapproach.Level6(10.1%)responsesindicatethattheparticipantsaresimilartothoseatLevel7,butwithlessintensity.Level7(1.8%)responsesindicatethattheparticipants’in-structionalpracticesalignexclusivelywithalearner-basedapproach.Theseresultsweremoreencouragingthanexpected,withmorethanhalfoftherespondentsdescribingtheuseconstructivistteachingpracticestoatleastamoderatedegree.
Figure 3. Current Instructional Practices.
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
420 Summer2006:Volume 38 Number 4
Research Question 2:Istherearelationshipbetweenteachers’CurrentInstruc-tionalPracticesscoresandteachers’LevelofTechnologyImplementationscores?
InordertoexaminetherelationshipbetweenthescoreontheCurrentIn-structionalPracticesscaleandthescoresontheLevelofTechnologyscale,thedatawereanalyzedusingmultipleregressionwithCurrentInstructionalPrac-ticesscoresenteredasthedependentvariableandtheLevelofTechnologyInte-grationscoresenteredastheindependentorpredictorvariable.
Resultsofstandardmultipleregression,inwhichallvariableswereenteredintothepredictiveequation,revealedanR2of.16,F=23.07,p<.001,andindicatestherewasasignificantlinearrelationshipbetweenthecriterionvari-able(CIP)andthepredictorvariable(LoTi).About16%ofthevarianceintheCurrentInstructionalPracticesscorescanbeaccountedforbytheLoTiscore.ResultsindicatethatR2isverypoor(.16)andthepredictivevalueoftheLevelofTechnologyIntegrationscoreislikelytobeunacceptable.
Thebivariatecorrelation(2-tailed)betweenCIPandLOTIis.40(p<.01).Thepositive,moderatecorrelationbetweenCIPandLOTIindicatesthatteacherswhoscoredhigherontheLOTIscoredhigherontheCurrentInstructionalPracticesscale.
BasedonresultsofresearchbyBeckerandRavitz(1999)andMiddletonandMurray(1999),itwasexpectedthatthepositiverelationshipbetweentheLevelsofTechnologyImplementationandCurrentInstructionalPracticeswouldbestronger.BeckerandRavitzfoundthatteacherswhousedvariouscomputertechnologiesintheclassroom,particularlystudent-centered,Internet-basedteachingactivities,aremorelikelythanotherteacherstodemonstratechangesassociatedwithconstructivistreforms.Inthisparticularpopulation,thepositiverelationshipexists,butdoesnotprovidesufficientpredictivepower.Thismaybeanadditionalindicationthatthetechnology-relatedtrainingprovidedtotheseteachersdidnotprovideastrongenoughlinkbetweentechnologytoolsandtheircurriculumasindicatedintheLoTiresultsfortheseteachers.
Research Question 3:Istherearelationshipbetweenteachers’CurrentIn-structionalPracticesscoresandteachers’PersonalComputerUsescores?
InordertoexaminetherelationshipbetweenthescoresontheCurrentIn-structionalPracticesscaleandthescoresonthePersonalComputerUsescale,thedatawereanalyzedusingmultipleregressionwithCurrentInstructionalPracticesscoresenteredasthedependentvariableandthePersonalComputerUsescoresenteredastheindependentorpredictorvariable.
Resultsofstandardmultipleregression,inwhichallvariableswereenteredintothepredictiveequation,revealedanR2of.25,F=22.83,p<.001indicatetherewasasignificantlinearrelationshipbetweenthecriterionvariable(CIP)andthepredictorvariable(LoTi).About25%ofthevarianceintheCurrentInstructionalPracticesscorescanbeaccountedforbythePersonalComputerUsescore.ResultsindicatethattheCurrentInstructionalPracticesscorecanbepredictedbythePer-sonalComputerUsescore.Inthiscase,R2isweak,butinterpretable.
Thebivariatecorrelation(2-tailed)betweenCIPandPCUis.51(p<.01).Thepositive,moderatecorrelationbetweenCIPandPCUindicatesthatteach-erswhoscoredhigheronthePCUhavehigherscoresontheCurrentInstruc-tionalPracticesscale.
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 421
TheseresultsaresimilartofindingsbyRakesetal.(1999).Teachers’strong,basictechnologyskilllevelsappeartoprovideteacherswithacomfortlevelwithcomputersneededtosupportconstructivistteachingpractices.Inthisregard,thebasictechnologyskillstrainingprovidedtheseteachersappearstohavebeensomewhatsuccessfulwithasegmentofthepopulation.
Research Question 4:Istherearelationshipbetweenteachers’CurrentIn-structionalPracticesandteachers’scoresonboththeLevelsofTechnologyImplementationandPersonalComputerUsescales?
InordertoexaminetherelationshipbetweenthescoreontheCurrentIn-structionalPracticesandthescoresonthebothLevelofTechnologyImplemen-tationscaleandPersonalComputerUsescales,thedatawereanalyzedusingmultipleregressionwithCurrentInstructionalPracticesscoresenteredasthedependentvariableandtheLevelofTechnologyImplementationandPersonalComputerUsescoresenteredastheindependentorpredictorvariables.
Resultsofstandardmultipleregression,inwhichallvariableswereenteredintothepredictiveequation,revealedanR2of.28,F=23.84,p<.001,andindicatetherewasasignificantlinearrelationshipbetweenthecriterionvariable(CIP)andthesetofpredictorvariables.ResultsindicatethattheCurrentIn-structionalPracticesscorecanbepredictedbyboththeLevelofTechnologyIm-plementationscoreandthePersonalComputerUsescores.About28%ofthevarianceintheCurrentInstructionalPracticesscorescanbeaccountedforbyboththeLoTiandthePCUscores.Inthiscase,R2isweak,butinterpretable.
Thesamplemultiplecorrelationcoefficientwas.53.Thepositive,moderatecor-relationsbetweenbothLoTiandPCUandCIPindicatethatteacherswhoscoredhigheronboththeLoTiandPCUhavehigherlevelsofCurrentInstructionalPractices.Bothpredictors,LevelsofTechnologyImplementationandPersonalComputerUse,contributedtoaslightlybetterpredictionofCurrentInstructionalPracticesscores.ThisresultconfirmsMoersch’s(1999)assertionthatappropriateuseoftechnologycanreinforcehighercognitiveskilldevelopmentandcomplexthinkingskillsaspromotedthroughtheuseofconstructivistteachingpractices.
FUTURERESEARCHOnechallengeforfutureresearchistodiscovermorespecificwayscomputer-
basedtechnologiesinfluencetheclassroompracticesofteachers.Whatotherfactorsmayactinconjunctionwithtechnologyusethatencourageconstructiv-istpractices?Howdopreexistingteacherattitudestowardtechnologyaffecttheiruseoftechnologyintheclassroom?Howdopreexistingteacherattitudestowardconstructivismaffecttheiruseoftheseteaching?Howdovarioustypesoftrainingaffectconstructivistteachingpractices?Howdoestheavailabilityoftechnologyresourcescontributetoconstructivistteachingpractices?Whattypesoftechnologytrainingbestfacilitatesthechangefromtraditionaltoconstruc-tivistteachingmethods?
McKenzie(2001)lamentsthefactthatmanyschooldistrictshaveputtheprover-bialcartbeforethehorseinplanningfortheuseoftechnologywithalessthandesir-ablereturnontheinvestment.Therecontinuestobemuchemphasisonthepurchaseandinstallationofequipmentwithoutsufficientfundingforstaffdevelopment.
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
422 Summer2006:Volume 38 Number 4
Thischallengeshouldbeaboutusingnewtoolstohelpstudentsmasterthekeyconceptsandskillsembeddedinthescience,socialstudies,artandothercurriculumstandards.ItisnotsomuchaboutPowerPoint-ing,spreadsheetingorwordprocessing.Thefocusshouldbeonteach-ingandlearningstrategiesthatmakeadifferenceindailypractice—onactivitiestranslatingintostrongerstudentperformance.(¶10)
Theresultsofthecurrentstudyconfirmthatteacherswhohavesolidbasicskillsandcomfortlevelswithtechnologyandthosewhousecomputertechnol-ogiesintheirclassroomsaremorelikelytouseconstructivistteachingpractices.Giventhecurrentemphasisonproducingstudentswithhighlevelsofthinkingskills,anytoolsthatcanencouragetheuseofconstructivistclassroompracticesandencouragethedevelopmentofthinkingskillsinstudentsshouldbecon-sideredimportantforallteachersandstudents.Promotinghigherachievementinefficientwaysofusingcomputertechnologies,particularlyinunder-fundedschools,isworthyoffurtherinvestigation.
Theultimategoalofresearchontheuseoftechnologyasatoolforconstruc-tivistteachingpracticesistoverifyalinkbetweenclassroomtechnologyuse,constructivistinstructionalpractices,andimprovedstudentachievement.Fu-tureresearchshouldspecificallyexploretheeffectoftechnologyuseinconstruc-tivistclassroomsonstudentperformance.
Asdemonstratedinthisstudy’steacherpopulation,theavailabilityofcom-putersandtrainingdonotnecessarilyresultinthewidespreaduseoftechnol-ogy.Perhapsonekeytounderstandingthislackofactiononthepartofmanyteachersliesinthefutureanalysisofteacherbeliefsregardingtheeffectivenessoftechnologyasaninstructionaltool.Pajares(1992)suggestedthat“Beliefsarefarmoreinfluentialthanknowledgeindetermininghowindividualsorganizeanddefinetasksandproblemsandarestrongerpredictorsofbehavior”(p.311).Teacherbeliefsconcerningtheirpersonalabilitytoeffectivelyusetechnologyandtheirbeliefsregardingthepotentialeffectonstudentachievementisquitepossi-blyasignificantfactorindeterminingwhatactuallyhappensintheclassroom.
ContributorsDr.RakesisaprofessorofinstructionaltechnologyattheUniversityof
Tennessee—Martin.(Address:GlendaC.Rakes,TheUniversityofTennes-see—Martin,GoochHall205F,CollegeofEducationandBehavioralSciences,DepartmentofEducationalStudies,Martin,TN38237;[email protected].)
Dr.FieldsisExecutiveDirectorofLouisianaCampusCompact.(Address:ValerieS.Fields,SoutheasternLouisianaUniversity,LutherH.DysonHall–150B,Hammond,LA70402;[email protected].)
Ms.CoxisateachingassistantandPhDcandidateintheDepartmentofEd-ucationalPsychologyandResearchattheUniversityofMemphis.(Address:Ka-reeE.Cox,TheUniversityofMemphis,CollegeofEducation,BallHall–100,Memphis,TN38152;[email protected].)
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 423
ReferencesBecker,H.J.,&Ravitz,J.(1999).TheinfluenceofcomputerandInternet
useonteachers’pedagogicalpracticesandperceptions.Journal of Research on Computers in Education. 31(4),356–379.
Beeson,E.,&Strange,M.(2003,February).Why rural matters 2003: The con-tinuing need for every state to take action on rural education. A report of the Rural School and Community Trust Policy Program[Online].Available:http://www.ruraledu.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=beJMIZOCIrH&b=1000115&ct=1147039
Bracey,G.W.(2002).Raisingachievementofat-riskstudentsornot.Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6),431–432.
Brooks,J.G.(2004).Toseebeyondthelesson.Educational Leadership,62(1),8–12.Collins,T.,&Dewees,S.(2001).Challengeandpromise:Technologyinthe
classroom.Southern Rural Development Center,18,1–6.Cuban,L.(2001).Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.Cam-
bridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Dawson,C.&Rakes,G.C.(2003).Theinfluenceofprincipals’technology
trainingontheintegrationoftechnologyintoschools.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,36(1),29–49.
Dewey,J.(1916).Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. NewYork:FreePress.
Doherty,K.M.,&Orlofsky,G.F.(2001).Studentsurveysays:Schoolsareprobablynotusingeducationaltechnologyaswiselyoreffectivelyastheycould.Education Week, 20(35),45–48.
Dwyer,D.C.(1994).Appleclassroomsoftomorrow:Whatwe’velearned.Educational Leadership, 52,4–10.
Fuller,H.L.(2000).Firstteachtheirteachers:Technologysupportandcom-puteruseinacademicsubjects.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 511–535.
Iding,M.,Crosby,M.E.,&Speitel,T.(2002).Teachersandtechnology:Be-liefsandpractices.International Journal of Instructional Media,29(2),153–171.
Ingersoll,R.M.(2004).Why do high-poverty schools have difficulty staffing their classrooms with qualified teachers? (Report prepared for Renewing Our Schools, Securing Our Future—A National Task Force on Public Education).Washington,DC:TheCenterforAmericanProgressandtheInstituteforAmerica’sFuture.RetrievedDecember27,2004,fromhttp://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=252682.
McKenzie,J.(2001).Howteacherslearntechnologybest.From Now On, 10(6).RetrievedDecember14,2005,fromhttp://www.fno.org/mar01/howlearn.html.
Middleton,B.M.,&Murray,R.K.(1999).Theimpactofinstructionaltech-nologyonstudentacademicachievementinreadingandmathematics.Interna-tional Journal of Instructional Media,26(1),109–116.
Moersch,C.(1995).Levelsoftechnologyimplementation(LoTi):Aframe-workformeasuringclassroomtechnologyuse.Learning and Leading with Tech-nology, 23(3),40–42.
Moersch,C.(1998).Enhancingstudents’thinkingskills.Learning and Lead-ing with Technology, 25(6),50–53.
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.
424 Summer2006:Volume 38 Number 4
Moersch,C.(1999).Assessingcurrenttechnologyuseintheclassroom:Akeytoefficientstaffdevelopmentandtechnologyplanning.Learning and Leading with Technology, 26(8),40–49.
Papert,S.(1980).Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas.NewYork:HarperCollins.
Papert,S.(1994).The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Pajares,M.F.(1992).Teachers’beliefsandeducationalresearch:Cleaningupamessyconstruct.Review of Educational Research, 62(3),307–332.
Perchman,E.M.(1992).Childasmeaningmaker:Theorganizingthemeforprofessionalpracticeschools.InM.Levine(Ed.),Professional practice schools(pp.25–62).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Piaget,J.(1973).To understand is to invent.NewYork:Grossman.Rakes,G.C.,Flowers,B.F.,Casey,H.B,&Santana,R.(1999).Ananalysis
ofinstructionaltechnologyuseandconstructivistbehaviorsinK–12teachers.International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2).RetrievedDecember14,2005,fromhttp://smi.curtin.edu.au/ijet/v1n2/rakes/index.html.
Reeves,T.(1998,February).The impact of media and technology in schools. A research report prepared for the Berteslemann Foundation.Available:http://www.athensacademy.org/instruct/media_tech/reeves0.html.
Richardson,V.(1997).Constructivistteachingandteachereducation:Theoryandpractice.InV.Richardson(Ed.),Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings(pp.3–14).Washington,DC:FalmerPress.
Riley,R.W.(2002).Educationreformthroughstandardsandpartnerships,1993–2000.Phi Delta Kappan,83(9),700–707.
Sandholtz,J.H.,Ringstaff,C.,&Dwyer,D.C.(1997).Teaching with technol-ogy: Creating student-centered classrooms.NewYork:TeachersCollege.
Trimble,S.(2003).Betweenreformandimprovementintheclassroom.Prin-cipal Leadership, 4(1),35–39.
vonGlasersfeld,E.(1981).Theconceptsofadoptionandviabilityinaradi-calconstructivisttheoryofknowledge.InI.E.Sigel,D.M.Broinsky,&R.M.Golinkoff(Eds.),New directions in Piagetian theory and practice (pp.87–95). Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Voss,J.F.,&Post,T.A.(1998).Onthesolvingofill-structuredproblems.InM.T.H.Chi,R.Glaser,&M.J.Farr(Eds.),The nature of expertise (pp.261–285).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Wenglinsky,H.(2004).Factsorcriticalthinkingskills?WhatNAEPresultssay.Educational Leadership,62(1),32–35.
White,B.Y.,&Frederiksen,J.R.(1998).Inquiry,modeling,andmetacogni-tion:Makingscienceaccessibletoallstudents.Cognition and Instruction, 16(1),3–18.
Copyright © 2006, International Society for Technology in Education. All rights reserved.