the influence of teachersâ€™ technology use on instructional practices

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



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).



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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-



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.



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.



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.



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.



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].)



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.



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.


the influence of teachersâ€™ technology use on instructional practices

Documents